Chemistry for the Next Decade and Beyond INTERNATIONAL PERCEPTIONS OF THE UK CHEMISTRY RESEARCH BASE

Medical Research Council Chemistry for the Next Decade and Beyond

International Review of UK Chemistry Research 19 - 24 April 2009

“If the victory at Waterloo, which set the stage for Britain’s pre-eminence in the century that followed, was ‘won on the playing fields of Eton’ as the Duke of Wellington famously observed, it may be equally true to say that the contest for pre-eminence in the 21st century will be won on the campuses of the world’s research universities.”

“Research Universities: Their Value to Society Extends Well Beyond Research.” Robert M. Berdahl, President, American Association of Universities, April 2009 Foreword Foreword

This is an exciting time for Engineering and the Physical Sciences, when the UK seeks to extend both its economic and social impact and international reputation for cutting edge fundamental research. This is the second International Review of Chemistry and reflects the important contribution of this area to the UK. This contribution enables progress by bringing a fundamental knowledge and understanding of chemistry which drives advances in many areas. Chemistry research underpins a wide range of activities that benefit society including discoveries that lead to new industries, materials and technologies as well as helping to conquer diseases. Chemistry will be indispensable in attacking the challenges of climate change, energy and sustainability.

The preparation for this review has been ongoing for over a year and we would like to thank our colleagues on the Steering Committee, which included representation of the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Institution of Chemical Engineers, the Chemistry Innovation Knowledge Transfer Network (CI-KTN), the Biochemical Society, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and the Institute of Physics. We also thank our colleagues from the Medical Research Council (MRC), the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) who also supported and helped to guide the review. Specific thanks must go to the EPSRC staff for their unwavering support and hard work which enabled the panel to do its work so effectively.

This report, the culmination of these activities, is entirely the work of the International Review Panel to whom we are very grateful – their expertise, team work, enthusiasm and capacity for sheer hard work impressed all those who came into contact with them. To Professor Mike Klein, Chair of the International Review Panel, we are hugely indebted; his commitment and leadership were vital to both the review and the completion of this report.

We also warmly thank all those in the academic research community, together with their collaborators in industry who are so vital to the health of UK chemistry research, for rising to the challenges and opportunities that this review presented. We are especially grateful to those who coordinated and participated in each visit, often travelling some distance to meet the panel. Due to the way in which the community worked so well together, the panel interacted with a great many researchers and witnessed a wider range of exciting advances in the short time available to them than would have otherwise been possible.

We hope this report will stimulate further debate around the findings and recommendations highlighted and we genuinely welcome your feedback on any issues raised. Comments should be sent to the Chemistry International Review team at [email protected]

Professor David Delpy Professor Jim Feast Chief Executive, EPSRC Steering Committee Chair

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 1 Executive Summary Executive Summary

The 2009 Chemistry International Review Panel Centres (DTCs). Chemists in the UK have definitely completed a week long review of chemistry research shed their ivory tower attitudes and are better throughout the United Kingdom. Although sponsored prepared than in the past to tackle society's by the EPSRC the Panel was charged to include the challenges. The panel was impressed with the calibre whole chemistry research base that is funded by the and intellectual strength of some of the ECR scientists Research Councils, charities and industry. This they met. However, the general situation for some of document presents the Panel’s perceptions, embodied the ECRs gives cause for concern. Another concern in the form of findings and recommendations, was the degree of communication and engagement of culminating from their high-level review. Importantly, the chemistry community in both implementing policy the Panel offers a number of suggestions to sustain and dialogue with decision makers. and improve the excellent chemistry research that is occurring throughout the UK. The main findings and The following perceptions (findings and recommendations of the Panel are given below and in recommendations) were developed by the Panel on the body of the report. the basis of presentations and discussions during the week-long review. The review took place during the week starting Sunday, April 19, 2009 and involved an International A. Recommendations Panel consisting of 18 scientists. The Panel convened in Manchester for background briefings from Professor The following recommendations were developed by David Delpy, FRS (Chief Executive, EPSRC) and other the Panel on the basis of presentations and stakeholders, as well as an overview of the RAE discussions during the review. Other recommendations exercise from Professor Jeremy Sanders, FRS. The Panel are contained in the main body of the report. was then divided into two groups, each of which visited four separate locations (one per day). The 1. Nurture & support ECR chemists - Create viable whole Panel then reconvened near London to share mechanisms to encourage research independence1. information and formulate the findings and recommendations contained in the report. The focus 2. Develop a viable strategy for sustaining the of the review was centred on eight Framework excellent infrastructure, shared facilities and Questions (see Annex A), formulated by the Steering national facilities. Committee, chaired by Professor Jim Feast, FRS. However, the Panel did not feel overly constrained by 3. Build on regional strengths: pooling, as these and used the format of town hall meetings at appropriate, between local universities to create each location to hear the voice of the community, centres of excellence, alliances with research albeit briefly. The Panel made a point of engaging councils and regional development agencies. early career research (ECR) scientists at each location. 4. Open a dialogue between research funders and In brief, the overall health of chemistry research in the the research community to review the balance of UK is good. There are significant changes of research funding allocated to responsive mode versus emphasis across the UK since the last International programme/platform grants and mechanisms for Review. There are pockets of truly outstanding (world- sustaining high risk research. leading and world-class) work going on and numerous examples of very well-supported research groups. The 5. PhD to reflect achievement (education versus community is aggressively utilising all of the funding training). streams available through the Research Councils, charities, Europe and industry. Importantly, the top- level research is not confined to just one location. There are excellent examples of international collaboration, especially via EU programmes and a number of good examples of cooperation with 1 industry. Multi-disciplinary research efforts are In the US, NIH is taking aggressive action; see Encouraging Early Transition to Research Independence: Modifying the NIH New expanding. Pockets of excellent multidisciplinary Investigator Policy to Identify Early Stage Investigators: research are being nucleated via Doctoral Training http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-121.html

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 3 Executive Summary

Areas in need of emphasis and encouragement: • Examples of fully funded industrial studentships are a strength. 6. The following three areas (underpinned by chemical synthesis and by characterisation, UK chemistry derives enormous strength from utilising state-of-the-art facilities and recent large investments in infrastructure, shared instrumentation) offer enormous potential for UK equipment & national user facilities chemistry to make a significant contribution to worldwide societal challenges: • Overall outstanding NMR, mass spectroscopy, analytical facilities, etc. • Energy (The USA has finally acted boldly with funding • Seemingly equipped at a level that Max Planck of 46 Energy Frontiers Research Centres2) Institutes are the only near equivalent in Europe.

• Drug Discovery Early career researchers (There is a role/opportunity for Universities – spinouts and big Pharma) • Large number of ECRs (diverse in gender and culture) across the UK is a strength. • Materials for Medicine (Nanomedicine and more) • The number and diversity of ECRs offers a clear opportunity to define and build a more equitable In addition, the relevant stakeholders in the chemistry system for career advancement. community need to address: Instrument development 7. Integration of Computational Chemistry (Need to enhance the participation of theory and • Pockets of excellence exist where unique computation especially in areas that involve instrumentation is being developed. energy, materials and health applications). • Some world-leading efforts. 8. Failure of current administrative structures and funding mechanisms into university departments C. Positive Trends (since 2002) to provide for medium-size equipment and start- up funds. • UK chemistry has demonstrated its ability to evolve & respond to external review & new B. Strengths of UK Chemistry opportunities.

Research in the UK is internationally recognised • Multidisciplinary research efforts are expanding in & well placed to tackle society’s greatest chemistry but there could be more. challenges • Good examples of local and regional university • World-class and sometimes world-leading in areas interactions & funding – especially to be such as chemical biology (bioanalytical, encouraged & nurtured. biomaterials, biocatalysis), materials & supramolecular chemistry, synthesis & theory. • PhD-level education is moving towards international norms. There are some excellent DTC • Multi-disciplinary efforts in chemistry have programmes in place. expanded their reach & impact. D. Weaknesses in UK Chemistry Overall academic-industry collaboration is a positive & distinguishing feature of UK Chemistry • Nurturing and support of early career researchers (ECRs). • Vigorous, successful spin-outs & licensing across chemical disciplines. 2 http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/EFRC.html

4 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Executive Summary

• Support for ECRs and established researchers not Societal Impact & Multi-disciplinary Research geared to enable adventurous research. (Questions D and E)

• Future is hampered by its lack of diversity within • Much improved situation since 2002. the established research community. • Opportunities for integration across disciplines not • World-leading infrastructure will need a strategic yet fully realised (even more could be done with vision if it is to be sustained, but no overarching engineering, physics and medicine). plan evident, locally, regionally or nationally. • Some awareness among chemists of opportunity • Communication between Research Councils and to solve major societal challenges. Stakeholders is affecting UK Chemistry. • Effective response requires commitment to multi- E. Framework Findings disciplinary connectivity.

UK Chemistry on the Global Scene Societal Benefit of UK Research (Questions A and B) (Questions F and G)

• Global impact of chemical research is uneven. • DTC programmes with industrial emphasis add value to academia and economy. • Islands of excellence - departments and disciplines. • Examples of translational research via partnerships • Active engagement in international scientific and spinouts. collaborations. • Multiple examples of vigorous and successful spin- • Substantial pay-off from infrastructure investment, offs. but the issue of equipment maintenance and running costs is critical. • National advantage likely derives from flexible sharing of intellectual property and diversity of Research Culture and Early Career possibilities. (Questions C and H)

• Risk-averse research culture.

• Perceived penalty for failure is too high.

• Research performance metrics linked to the RAE may be a factor.

• Transformative research not sufficiently encouraged.

• ECRs often suffer from insufficient mentoring and inadequate funding.

• Often no well-defined path to academic success.

• Overall, absence of diversity: gender, ethnic, cultural.

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 5 1.0 Contents Contents

2.0 Background to the Review 8 2.1 Terms of Reference 9

3.0 Introduction 10

4.0 Acknowledgements 14

5.0 Panel Responses to the “Framework and Subsidiary Questions” 16 5.A What is the impact on a global scale of the UK Chemistry research community both in terms of research quality and the profile of researchers? 17 5.B To what extent are UK researchers engaged in “best with best” science-driven international interactions? 23 5.C What evidence is there to support the existence of a creative and adventurous research base and portfolio? 24 5.D To what extent is the UK chemistry community addressing key technological/societal challenges through engaging in new research opportunities? 25 5.E To what extent is the chemistry research base contributing to other disciplines and multidisciplinary research? 27 5.F What is the level of knowledge exchange between the research base and industry that is of benefit to both sides? 28 5.G To what extent is the UK Chemistry research activity focussed to benefit the UK economy and global competitiveness? 29 5.H To what extent is the UK able to attract talented young scientists and engineers into chemistry research? Is there evidence that they are being nurtured and supported at every stage of their career? 30 5. I Other observations and recommendations 32

6.0 Overall Recommendations 36

7.0 Concluding Remarks 42

Glossary of Abbreviations 44

Annex A: The International Review of Chemistry: Evidence Framework. Questions and Subsidiary questions 47

Annex B: Brief Biographies of Panel Members 49

Annex C: International Review of Chemistry – Review Week Itinerary 58

Annex D: Supporting Evidence and Information Provided 59

Annex E: Grand Challenges 62

Annex F: Summary of all Recommendations 63

Annex G: Steering Committee Membership and Role 68

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 7 2.0 Background to the Review Background to the Review

EPSRC holds regular international reviews to inform evidence. At the end of the week, representatives of itself and the community (including stakeholders, the Steering Committee met the panel to hear and industrial bodies, learned societies, academia and discuss their preliminary findings and government departments) about the quality and recommendations. Members of the Steering impact of the UK science base compared to the rest of Committee briefed the panel at the beginning of the the world and to highlight any gaps or missed review to remind them of the UK context. opportunities. Each international review provides a broad perspective on the research activity in a 2.1.Terms of Reference particular discipline in the UK, and is undertaken with The terms of reference for the International Review the relevant learned institutions and other research were to: councils as appropriate; it is a rolling programme in which the research base in each discipline is reviewed • Assess and compare the quality of the UK research approximately every five years. Twelve reviews have base in chemistry with the rest of the world. been conducted since 1999. • Assess the impact of the research base activities in This 2009 International Review of UK Chemistry chemistry internationally and on other disciplines Research has focused on the discipline of chemistry as nationally, on wealth creation and on quality of a whole: chemistry research in chemistry and other life and prepare recommendations. departments. The previous review in this subject area, entitled, “Chemistry at the Centre: An International • Comment on progress since the 2002 Review; Assessment of University Research in Chemistry in the comment on any changes affecting the UK” was carried out in 2002 by a panel chaired by recommendations. George Whitesides. The present review panel was selected in consultation with the Steering Committee, • Present findings and recommendations to the chaired by Professor Jim Feast, FRS, with members research community and councils. chosen for the breadth and depth of their expertise. Three of the panellists also served on the previous The Panel’s aim was not to assess the quality of Review. individual groups or universities but to give a view on the quality and international standing of chemistry The purpose of the review is to benchmark chemistry research in the UK as a whole. The panel was in the UK against the rest of the world. It covers encouraged to indicate the relative strengths of areas research excellence, knowledge exchange, people and within chemistry and to assess “overall standing and research infrastructure; the focus has been primarily quality of chemistry research in the UK from an on research and training in UK universities (and international perspective” and indicate “where action appropriate institutes), but the review has taken is required, and recommendations to improve the UK’s account of activities elsewhere in the context of position over the coming decade.” knowledge exchange. Other EPSRC international reviews have been taken into account where relevant. Although most of the activity covered falls within EPSRC’s remit the review has also encompassed areas such as atmospheric chemistry (in NERC’s remit), biological chemistry including biomolecular sciences (in BBSRC’s remit), and medicinal chemistry (in MRC’s remit), and astrochemistry and other aspects of chemistry in the Science & Technology Facilities Council’s (STFC) remit.

The role of the UK Steering Committee was to oversee the review and as stakeholders to act as a proxy for the community. The Steering Committee advised on issues of timing, panel membership, including the chair, locations to be visited and the provision of

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 9 3.0 Introduction Introduction

During the week starting Sunday, 19th April 2009, an Career Researchers (ECRs) have been appointed. International Panel consisting of 18 scientists and Concerns were expressed that current funding regimes engineers came together in Manchester, England, for may not provide adequate support for their research the purpose of assessing the quality and impact of careers to prosper. Good evidence was found of academic chemistry research in the United Kingdom engagement of chemistry with local, national and (UK). After an organisation meeting on Sunday, the international industry through spin-out and licensing Panel divided into sub-panels, each of which visited a activity and collaborative grants. However, a need to separate set of venues during the ensuing Monday to develop a new way of working with chemical Thursday. industries and downstream businesses was noted; as was the insufficient engagement with the public in The focus of the assessment was centred on, but not science education. We will see that many of these limited to, eight Framework Questions. These top level findings resonate with the conclusions of the present questions are common to the assessments that will be International Review. Overall, chemical research in the or have been performed by all the International UK has improved from the base in 2001/2002, both as Review Panels. In the case of the Chemistry Review, measured by quantitative assessment of the RAE 2008 the Steering Committee modified a series of questions report as well as qualitative assessment by the present subsidiary to each of the top level Framework International Panel. Questions. These questions including the subsidiary questions are found in Annex A. They are also Caution: The International Panel has done its best to repeated piecewise in the next section of this report assess the evidence, analyse, report and prioritise its that summarises the International Review of Chemistry findings and be above prejudice. Alas, we are but (IRC) Panel’s findings. Given the task at hand and the human (and exhausted!). Chair takes responsibility time available, a realistic assessment would have been and apologises in advance for any misinterpretations, very difficult without the commonality of inquiry that the propagation of any false perceptions and factual the questions provided. Many of these Framework errors that may have inadvertently made their way Questions addressed issues that extended beyond the into its conclusions. normal inquiry of quality and focus of research. Consequently, the scope of the Review was During the ensuing four days the Panel had the considerably broader. It also became clear as the week opportunity to visit nine venues and meet with faculty progressed that some of the issues identified by the and researchers from 22 universities. This was possible Steering Committee and posed as subsidiary questions because several institutions often shared a venue. were not the types of issues that academics regularly Without such sharing the extent of coverage of the ponder. In part, this accounts for the uneven institutions would have been considerably less. The responses that were provided at different venues and details of the itinerary for the week including the by different universities. venues and the universities present at each one are found in Annex C. In addition, individuals from This review in 2009 is a sequel to the last International companies involved with the universities as research Review (the ‘Whitesides’ Review) in 2002. It follows collaborators were present at each venue. Given the the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) carried out in nature of some of the framework questions, the 2008. In brief, the RAE 2008 Unit of Assessment 18: presence of these private sector representatives proved Chemistry sub-panel reported that UK chemistry invaluable. remains buoyant and internationally competitive, with a shift towards a more international quality of As mentioned earlier, in order to accomplish such a research since the previous RAE in 2001; an advance broad coverage of these university research enabled in part by increased investment in programmes in the course of four days, it was infrastructure through Joint Infrastructure Fund (JIF), necessary to divide the Panel into two sub-panels. Strategic Research Infrastructure Fund (SRIF) and The composition of the sub-panels for the various Capital Investment Framework (CIF). The RAE found venues also can be found in Annex C. approximately 15% of all outputs to be world-leading. The high calibre of the UK Chemistry community was Each university or group of universities was permitted attributed in part to continued strength in core by the EPSRC to decide the most effective way to disciplines. Since 2001, substantial numbers of Early showcase their achievements and a suggested

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 11 Introduction

The International Panel The panel members, their home institution or company, their country of domicile and their technical speciality are shown in Table 1. Brief biographies of the panel members are found in Annex B.

Table 1: Composition of International Review Team #

Name Institution Expertise Country

Professor Magid Abou-Gharbia Temple University Medicinal Chemistry USA

Professor Anna Balazs* University of Pittsburgh Theory and Modelling of Polymers USA

Professor Erick Carreira* ETH Zürich Organic Synthesis Switzerland

Professor Sylvia Ceyer Massachusetts Institute Physical Chemistry USA of Technology and Surface Science

Professor Vicki Colvin Rice University Nanotechnology USA

Professor Graham Fleming University of California, Physical Chemistry and USA Berkeley Chemical Biology

Professor Peter Ford University of California, Inorganic Chemistry USA Santa Barbara

Dr Henrik Hahn Evonik Litarion GmbH Electrochemistry Germany

Professor Andrew Holmes University of Melbourne Synthetic and Materials Chemistry Australia

Professor Mike Klein (Chair)* University of Pennsylvania Computational Chemistry USA

Professor Goverdhan Mehta Indian Institute of Science Organic Synthesis India

Professor Egbert Meijer Eindhoven University of Supramolecular Chemistry The Technology Netherlands

Professor Gerard Meijer Fritz Haber Institute of the Chemical Physics Germany Max Planck Society

Professor Helmuth Möhwald Max Planck Institute for Colloids and Interface Science Germany Colloids and Interfaces

Professor Michele Parrinello ETH Zurich USI-campus Lugano Theoretical Chemistry Switzerland

Professor Bernard Raveau CNRS/ University of Caen Materials Chemistry and Physics France

Professor Giacinto Scoles Elettra Sincrotrone Nanotechnology and Italy Physical Chemistry

Professor Jim Wells University of California, San Francisco Biological Chemistry USA

# USA = 8, Germany = 3, Switzerland = 2, Australia, France, India, Italy, the Netherlands =1 * Member of the ‘Whitesides’ Panel: International Review 2002

12 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Introduction

overview timetable was provided to facilitate planning; and to re-assemble this data into a broader picture, however the framework questions (Annex A) were there will be no institutional attribution mentioned in provided in advance by the EPSRC together with the this report. There was at least one EPSRC staff request that these should be the centrepiece of the member present at each venue and they can provide discussions. The universities were also invited to attribution as deemed appropriate by the EPSRC. It is attend a briefing day, which focussed on the logistics hoped that, at a minimum, institutional “Best of the visits and further developing their ideas for Practices” will be identified and propagated across the sessions. The responsiveness of the various institutions university community for the betterment of the overall to this guidance was successful in that the panel had UK programme. Many of the Best Practices are not consistency of presentations and were able to chemistry specific and can be adopted by other effectively engage with leading researchers and obtain disciplines as well. Conversely, there may be other an appreciation of the situation at each of the disciplines that are leading the way in some of the different universities. areas covered by the Framework Questions and it is hoped that the results of other disciplinary reviews will Because the task of the panel was to gather data enable transfer of these Best Practices to the chemistry related to the Framework Questions at each venue research community as well.

(n.b. Prof. Bert Meijer regrettably could not be present for this photograph) Key 1 Prof. Mike Klein 12 Prof. Magid Abou-Gharbia 2 Prof. Andrew Holmes 13 Prof. Michele Parrinello 3 Prof. Giacinto Scoles 14 Prof. Gerard Meijer 4 Prof. Helmuth Möhwald 15 Prof. Vicki Colvin 5 Prof. Sylvia Ceyer 16 Dr. Henrik Hahn 6 Prof. Erick Carriera 17 Prof. Goverdhan Mehta 7 Prof. Anna Balazs 18 Prof. Bernard Raveau 8 Miss. Katie Daniel (EPSRC) 19 Prof. Graham Fleming 9 Dr. Andrew Bourne (EPSRC) 20 Prof. Peter Ford 10 Prof. Jim Wells 21 Mr. Ben Ryan (EPSRC) 11 Dr. Chris Jones (EPSRC) 22 Dr. Gareth Buchanan (EPSRC)

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 13 4.0 Acknowledgements Acknowledgements

Panel members are grateful to the Steering presentations of uniform high quality. The Panel Committee for their excellent preparatory work that appreciates the enormous time and effort devoted to led to a well structured, albeit busy schedule. The the International Review by the Chemistry community. Panel also offers an enormous vote of thanks to the Talks and the interactions with the Panel formed the EPSRC staff involved in managing the review. basis of lively discussions and an effective Specifically, their tireless efforts in chaperoning communication vehicle. Many academic researchers members of the Panel on their whirlwind tour of the and industrialists travelled significant distances to UK, their excellent overall project management and participate in the presentations and open dialogue preparation, including distribution of documentation with panel members. Here again, the Panel is grateful for the Review, and first-rate travel arrangements, for the time and effort generously given over to the contributed enormously to a memorable experience Review by all those involved. The many frank and the success of the Review. discussions, with academics and industrialists were invaluable and form the basis of the Panel’s findings The Panel is deeply appreciative of the time and effort and recommendations. The Panel is especially given to the review by the host institutions and their appreciative of the early career researchers that openly staff. Everywhere, the Panel was exposed to shared their diverse experiences.

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 15 5.0 Panel Responses to the “Framework and Subsidiary Questions” Panel Responses to the “Framework and Subsidiary Questions”

Preamble environment along with health and wellbeing are all inextricably linked to chemistry. It is beholding on all The Framework and associated Subsidiary Questions parties (funding bodies, industry and academia) to generated by the International Review Steering work together to chart the way forward for the UK. Committee amounted to more than 50 separate issues The outcome of such a dialogue must be a way to on which the Panel was charged to gather findings build a viable framework to sustain creative and offer recommendations. This forbidding task was (adventurous) chemistry that will lead to innovation all the more challenging given that each sub-panel and thus have profound implications for all. had only four days to gather anecdotal information from the Chemistry community before their findings 5.A. What is the impact on a global scale of the were discussed by the complete Panel on the final day UK Chemistry research community both in terms of the review. A democratic partitioning of the Panel’s of research quality and the profile of time would have allocated about 10 minutes per issue researchers? per location. Nevertheless, the Panel embraced this challenge with gusto. The Panel’s views were also Summary Findings: informed by additional information provided by Global impact of chemical research is uneven but EPSRC, including submissions responding to the with examples of world-leading and world-class Evidence Framework that were prepared by the effort various universities and other stakeholders3. The time pressures experienced by the Panel were severe and Islands of excellence exist at the level of the information may not be as fully digested as it departments and disciplines should be. Thus the conclusions and findings should be regarded as perceptions and treated in the spirit in The impact of UK chemical research globally is uneven which they are tendered, namely, suggestions to both in quality and profile. There are islands of enhance and sustain chemistry in the UK for next excellence with respect to both departments and decade and beyond. disciplines. The number of centres characterised by excellent quality of research seems to be relatively As will be evident from the following pages, each issue small for the size of the population base when did not receive equal attention, or likely not even the compared against smaller European countries such as attention it deserved. The overall emphasis was in Switzerland and the Netherlands. many respects dictated by the UK Chemistry community, as articulated in the open meetings that 5.A.1. Is the UK the international leader in chemistry were held at each location visited. Thus through its research? In which areas? What contributes to input at these meetings the community was responsible the UK strength and what are the for a tilt of the Panel’s emphasis away from issues recommendations for continued strength? calling for an assessment of outcomes such as jobs and wealth creation towards an examination of the impact The Panel was not given a full opportunity to evaluate of current policies and procedures (both at the this question in depth since it was presented with a Research Councils and at the universities) on creativity snapshot of the UK chemistry community. Seen from and innovation in chemistry. Arguably the most this vantage point the situation is rather pressing issue identified by the Panel as in need of heterogeneous and uneven with respect to a notable attention was the current treatment of ECR scientists leadership position. There are examples of excellence both by the universities and the Research Councils. that can be readily identified in synthesis, catalysis including biocatalysis, biological chemistry (specifically The following section contains the Panel’s findings and bioanalytical), supramolecular chemistry, polymers and recommendations concerning the Framework colloids and gas-phase spectroscopy and dynamics. Questions. There is an overarching plea for the There are notable examples of areas in need of Research Councils and stakeholders to open a rejuvenation and strategic support. Selected comments meaningful dialogue and partnership with the on sub-disciplines of chemistry are given below. Chemistry community on the way forward. The solution to the societal Grand Challenges facing 3 For a full list of the supporting evidence provided to the Panel see humanity, namely sustainability, energy, the Annex D

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 17 Panel Responses to the “Framework and Subsidiary Questions”

Recommendation Specific Disciplinary Comments and A1: Greater participation and active involvement by Recommendations: the university community in partnership with the Research Councils is necessary to set priorities to Organic Chemistry (Synthesis) establish and sustain world-leadership positions in Historically, organic chemistry has been a bright star in chemistry. the constellation of UK chemistry, and the area, particularly synthesis, remains in a position of notable 5.A.2. What are the opportunities/threats for the strength. It is a discipline that occupies a core position future? and at the same time has unlimited potential in bridging to a variety of other fields. Thus, organic The absence of sustained long-term funding is seen as chemistry (synthesis) can find resonance in inter- and a serious impediment in responding to the evolution multi-disciplinary research programmes, such as those of chemistry as a science and its proper balance with in analytical, materials, biological and medical sciences. the core disciplines. Although there has been some There have been positive developments since the progress in multidisciplinary research, the lack (for the ‘Whitesides’ Review. Funding initiatives were most part) of institutionally interactive teams (or even established to promote physical organic chemistry. regional efforts) is inhibiting progress. Such teams are Particularly noteworthy are: the new connectivity likely to be crucial in addressing societal Grand involving process chemistry; diversity oriented synthesis; Challenges related to Sustainability, Energy, Health and biological chemistry; and new technologies the Environment. (miniaturisation, supported reagents, innovative solid- and solution-phase strategies). Numerous cases could Recommendation be identified in which fundamental discoveries and A2: More groups need to have access to observations in organic chemistry have been translated sustainable, long-term funding, which enables into successful spin-off (start-up) companies, resulting adventurous, visionary research in the core and in wealth and job creation in the UK. There have been multi-disciplinary programmes. impressive advances in the design and synthesis of functional molecules. Additionally, there are 5.A.3. In which areas is the UK weak and what are programmes in catalysis, methodology and natural the recommendations for improvement? products chemistry that are globally competitive. The Panel heard consistently repeated statements from the Potentially dangerous gaps in the UK academic fine chemicals and pharmaceutical industry of the high research base include aspects of medicinal chemistry, value they placed on the trained PhD organic chemists modern experimental physical chemistry and the link that they recruited in the UK and of the to chemical engineering. In spite of some pockets of interdependence of each party on the strong strength, opportunities exist to strengthen areas, such collaborative arrangements in place. as chemical biology, physical organic, theoretical and computational chemistry of condensed phases and First-rate, visionary research that is globally competitive advanced materials. These include a selection of core requires programmatic funding at elevated levels so as activities and interdisciplinary programmes. to enable long-range transformative research. There is strong competition not only from historically noteworthy Recommendation programmes in Europe, North America and Japan, but A3: Strategic hires (senior and ECR) in critical areas also increasing pressure from new competitors on the would help to address these shortcomings. global scene. Continued strong support for organic International leaders should be approached because chemistry in its various modalities (inter alia synthesis, it is likely they could more readily nucleate effective physical organic, bioorganic, new technologies/media) research programmes. at a high level is warranted in order to maintain a leading position. This applies equally to fundamental questions at the core as well as applications at the interfaces with materials, medicinal and biological chemistry where opportunities abound, e.g. the application of physical (organic) chemistry to the design and characterisation of new organic electronic materials.

18 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Panel Responses to the “Framework and Subsidiary Questions”

Recommendation A4: The presence of a DTC in synthesis is a positive development, as are those other recently announced DTCs which will stimulate capacity generation and help sustain new activities in chemical biology, nanoscience and medicinal chemistry at competitive level. However, it is necessary to support several vigorous research groups in these areas for to reap the rewards of this investment. Moreover, DTC funding should extend beyond a one-off opportunity; a plea resonating in other sub-disciplines of chemistry.

Physical, Theoretical and Computational Chemistry This area has a long and distinguished history in the UK. Important, Nobel-level developments have been initiated in the UK research community and one could quote several important schools of both experimental physical chemistry and theoretical chemistry as well as computational chemistry which have, over the years, contributed to the UK leadership position. While centres of excellence can still be identified, important researchers on the international scene. Although there areas of growth involving the links of physical, are notable exceptions, overall, the integration of the theoretical and computational research to vibrant theoretical and computational groups into the areas such as chemical biology, supramolecular scientific life of the UK Chemistry departments, chemistry and solid state materials, as well as outside the traditional gas phase areas, is not as well mesoscopic phenomena and multiscale modelling are developed as it should be. underrepresented in UK Chemistry. This situation leaves the community less than optimally ready to Recommendation contribute to important societal challenges in the A.5: More should be done to increase the current coming decade. In the not too distant future, the international standing of experimental physical, perceived reluctance of the community to tackle the theoretical and computational chemistry. current challenging new problems will further erode the international position of the physical, theoretical Inorganic Chemistry and computational community. There are a number of UK research groups that are internationally competitive in bioinorganic chemistry, The global position of UK experimental physical d- and f-block metal complex and main group chemistry seems to have been affected adversely by compound synthesis, inorganic materials, lack of support (start-up) for state-of-the-art supramolecular chemistry, catalysis, radiochemistry, instrumentation for ECR scientists wishing to computational applications and structural chemistry. In participate in emerging fields. The situation is partly this context, inorganic chemistry is a healthy discipline due to perpetuation of traditional areas but mostly in the UK, overlapping areas that have become major due to faculty hiring which seems to have been themes of UK Chemistry research including Chemical influenced to recruit preferentially in other areas by Biology and Materials Science. Considerable attention the perceived difficulty of obtaining expensive in terms of synthesis has shifted toward inorganic and instrumentation under the present funding models. In inorganic/organic hybrid materials. Consistent with the area of theory and computation, no provision international trends, such interdisciplinary activities seems to have been made to encourage the have grown over the past decade. However, there development of new algorithms and new ideas to appears to be limited activity among UK inorganic bring to full fruition the utilisation of the next chemists in the chemistry of sustainable energy, generation of very large parallel (petaflop) machines including solar energy conversion. that will soon become accessible to a large number of

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 19 Panel Responses to the “Framework and Subsidiary Questions”

The UK has a long tradition in the area of have huge societal and economic implications and homogeneous catalysis and this continues to be present important opportunities for creative research, strong today. Bioinorganic chemistry, including the including materials synthesis and modelling. They development of metal complexes for medical need greater attention because materials chemistry is applications, is a very active sub-discipline with strong well positioned to make valuable contributions. connections to biochemistry and biology. However, in agreement with the ‘Whitesides’ Review, it does not Recommendation appear that UK inorganic chemistry is in a dominant A.7a: Mechanisms to stimulate collaborations at position in any of these areas. Recent recruitments to the physics/chemistry materials interface should be senior positions in the UK could give the field a improved and an effort should be made to needed boost, however, the recruitment, nurturing encourage the training in this multidisciplinary area, and retention of outstanding early career inorganic which is the clue to discovery of new materials with chemists will be essential for this area to prosper in as yet unrealised properties. the UK. A.7b: An increased effort should be made to The resurgence in radiochemistry is a potentially stimulate collaborations between industry and the important development given the rising interest world- materials chemistry community via programmes, wide in nuclear power generation. There are obvious fellowships and exchanges. needs for better understanding of the environmental chemistry related to the radioisotopes and for The methods of characterisation used by the solid educating a new generation of personnel trained to state chemists, especially the structural deal with these materials. Moreover, this presents an characterisation, using Large Facilities (neutron, opportunity to explore the fundamental chemistry of synchrotron) are absolutely necessary for all the compounds that are rarely accessed in academic materials (polymer, colloid, biological and laboratories. supramolecular). The Panel was told that the national neutron facility, ISIS, is likely to run for only 120 days Recommendation or less in 2009/10 (compared to a possible 220) A.6: UK Inorganic Chemistry is well positioned to because of lack of financial support. make essential contributions to Sustainable Energy, including developing efficient and selective catalysis Recommendation for biomass feedstock and solar energy conversion A.8: Under-exploitation of facilities should be and storage. The new DTC in sustainable chemical viewed as unacceptable and be resolved as a technologies is a welcome development, and priority since the physics and chemistry (and further attention to these areas by the funding biology) communities are affected in the UK and agencies might encourage qualified individuals or will lose productivity and efficiency. teams to undertake the risk of potentially transformative research in this arena. Atmospheric Chemistry Atmospheric chemistry, a topic that bridges physical Solid State and Materials Chemistry and analytical chemistry, is an area of traditional Solid State and Materials Chemistry plays an important strength in the UK. Historically, UK scientists have role in a number of centres and programmes played a major role in elucidating the fundamental especially where nanomaterials and the energy- reaction kinetics and mechanisms underpinning electrochemistry interface are involved. The atmospheric chemistry, as well as combustion community has an international reputation for the chemistry. While much laboratory based chemistry discovery of novel materials with new physical remains to be done, the grand challenge is to link properties (magnetism, electrochemistry) and is also these detailed chemical reaction measurements to involved in catalysis. Although the level is very high in sophisticated models of climate change, a task of some groups, the Panel observed that the research great interest to the present large crop of globally- interface between solid state physics and materials minded students. Moreover the importance of such chemistry is perhaps not as vibrant as it should be. studies, and especially the modelling, for national and Moreover, solid state chemistry is indispensable for international policy will only increase over the next fuel cells and energy research in general. These topics decade.

20 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Panel Responses to the “Framework and Subsidiary Questions”

Recommendation Structure control at this length scale is vital for design A9: Because the scientific and engineering issues in of properties like mechanical, optical and electrical, as climate modelling and climate change are so well as the corresponding applications. There is immense the UK atmospheric chemistry community, strength in UK not only in synthesis, but also in and society, would best be served by further uniting characterisation of structure and properties. This is forces to maximise the UK's impact on the highly demanding, and it is thus pleasing to note that international stage of climate change. centres have usefully been formed to jointly tackle these tasks. This strength in characterisation enables Polymer Science and Engineering the development of novel systems composed of Following world-wide trends, the UK polymer- polymeric materials (e.g., actuators and sensors). chemistry community has made some important and excellent choices. In a coordinated action a few Recommendation universities have set-up excellent programmes A.10: Serious consideration needs to be given to covering the entire chain-of-knowledge in polymer sustaining and improving the quality of polymer science and engineering. In this way, the UK is and colloid science through opportunities in ensured a leading position in this important field for managed and responsive mode programmes. both scientific and industrial needs. There is strong Noteworthy opportunities exist in addressing new evidence of growth and impact in polymer synthesis in synthetic methodology for both specialist and the UK Chemistry community. There are several commodity polymers, and issues that relate to centres that have been created and whose members environmentally friendly footprint for commodity have established international reputations. The chemicals. polymer synthesis community has placed the field on the map in the UK. There is interest in controlled Supramolecular Chemistry (and Nanoscience) polymer synthesis, water-processible and functional Without doubt the UK excels in the relative new field polymers. A very strong activity that has international of supramolecular chemistry. Coming from a variety of recognition is the synthesis and processing of organic different areas of traditional chemistry and based on a electronic materials where the UK is pre-eminent. rich recent history, UK supramolecular chemistry has Applications include polymer LEDs field effect clearly positioned itself at the forefront of a research transistors, organic photovoltaics and sensors. field that rapidly grows internationally. The focus of the field follows one of the 25 “What we do not Universities that had small programmes in the past know” questions posed by Science Magazine on its have either moved their activities to new fields such as 125th anniversary, to wit "How far can we push soft matter, supramolecular chemistry or totally other chemical self-assembly?”. Outstanding contributions areas. This illustrates a successful action to create in the field of molecular motors, block copolymer focus and mass at one place (region) and refocusing assemblies, complex molecular systems, of research emphasis at others. supramolecular polymers, systems chemistry and dynamic covalent chemistry are just a few to illustrate Colloid Science the strength of this area. Care should be taken in not Colloid Science has been traditionally very strong in trivially designating everything supramolecular the UK chemistry and physics communities. In chemistry; it is more than just a new name for addition, there has been long-standing collaboration traditional topics. It is very pleasing to observe that the between industry and academia. This field is outstanding contributions that are obtained have undergoing major changes, due in part to retirements emerged from different laboratories distributed across of the previous generation of world leaders in the the UK and more importantly are embraced by area. Maintaining the health and strength of this excellent senior scientists as well as highly talented discipline is of strategic importance since it forms part ECR scientists. However, in the UK, the influence of of the foundation of disciplines, such as modern Physical Chemistry (Theory, Computation and nanotechnology, bio-medicine and pharmacy. Experiment) on the field of Supramolecular Chemistry (and Nanoscience) is lagging behind other nations, Analogous to issues in colloid science, the essential despite the enormous importance of this discipline to length scale in polymer science is the mesoscale, the further progress in designing, controlling and i.e. dimensions between 10nm and a micron. utilising complex molecular systems.

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 21 Panel Responses to the “Framework and Subsidiary Questions”

Recommendation later probes ablate the target of inquiry and require A.11: Attention should be given to improving the long developmental times or long treatments to have interface between physical, theoretical, effect. Small molecules have the advantage that they computational and supramolecular chemistry. typically block a particular site; they work quickly in the time-frame of signalling events themselves and in Biological Materials Chemistry a dose-dependent manner. Biological Materials Chemistry in the UK is strong internationally and well placed to play an integral role Recommendation in addressing societal Grand Challenges through future A.13: Attention to be given to improving the mission programmes. One area of opportunity is the interface between chemistry and biology via use of biological systems as tools for constructing schemes that further stimulate real collaborations. functional nano-biomaterials. The incorporation of biological components as essential elements of Biological Chemistry materials is emerging as an important strategy for The UK has truly outstanding examples of world- supramolecular chemistry; unlike the traditional area of leading research groups in biological chemistry. This biomaterials, which seeks to create materials for has been a traditional area of strength in UK science biological applications, this nascent sub-discipline and they have produced world leaders in the analysis within chemistry uses biology as one of many tools to of protein structure, function and folding. There are create materials for novel applications. The UK’s core many excellent collaborative research links between strengths and the emergence of chemical biology chemistry and biochemistry that auger well for the would be highly synergistic with an emphasis on future. The Panel did not visit any biochemistry biological materials chemistry and nano-biomaterials. departments or make explicit contact with biochemists during the review and so refrains from making specific Recommendation recommendations. A.12: Serious consideration needs to be given to establishing programmes in the area of biological Medicinal Chemistry materials chemistry with emphasis on nano- Medicinal Chemistry and drug discovery in the UK was biomaterials, with its obvious links to considered a real strength. The Panel saw community supramolecular chemistry, as well as chemical and efforts directed at established targets and toward the bio-engineering. important process of developing cures to diseases. However, significant gaps appear to exist and the UK’s Chemical Biology considerable talent could also directly address Chemical Biology, the emerging field of biology- important questions in cell signalling and cell biology, inspired chemistry, has made significant strides in the with the end goal not necessarily to cure a disease so UK since the ‘Whitesides’ Report in 2002. The panel much as to understand the molecular basis for it. UK saw several examples of truly innovative work in chemists could contribute mightily to this important developing chemical tools and processes to aid fields goal, which ultimately leads to more rational and of proteomics, protein chemistry, molecular evolution, informed approaches to mitigate diseases. genome sequencing and cell biology. The next step in this process is for UK chemists not just to develop The Panel noted with concern a trend to move important technologies for biologists, but to begin research out of the UK. To capitalise on the current probing biology themselves much more closely with pharmaceutical R&D operating model of resorting to biology colleagues. All too often tools can be academia for early identification of drug candidates, developed but not used. This was seen as a weakness academia could perhaps benefit by strengthening in the UK community relative to others internationally. Medicinal Chemistry and drug design capabilities. Making this next leap requires chemists to develop an Investment in these disciplines will likely bring in-depth understanding of the critical questions in enhanced cooperation and fruitful partnerships with biology, and how chemistry can be adapted to industry along with substantial benefit to both sides. uniquely address these questions. For example, Stimulation of such research within UK universities chemical probes of signalling pathways can have clear instead of institutions outside the UK is clearly an advantages over other tools available to biologists opportunity for academia. such as gene knockouts and siRNA. However these

22 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Panel Responses to the “Framework and Subsidiary Questions”

Recommendation A.14: Research Councils, stakeholders and academia should look for ways to create viable partnerships to further drug discovery in the UK to retain its globally competitive position.

Chemistry and the Nano-Bio-Med Frontier There has been real progress in the area of multidisciplinary research since the last Review. However, at the interface between biology and chemistry, where a healthy amount of activity has consolidated recently in the UK, the "definition" of the new field remains (with few exceptions) the classical one, and single molecule methods, for instance, are not yet, routinely, part of the discipline. Furthermore, the Panel was told of a new interdisciplinary centre where the faculty populating the new building were being grouped according to standard criteria. Thus, although there were going to be many opportunities for an expanding chemistry presence, no chemistry faculty were going to move the centre of mass of their operation into the new of chemical engineering as a pathfinder to facility. In another new facility at the interface of technological and commercial applications. However, chemistry with biology no nanotechnology will be these same academic institutions together with the present. In the future, the emerging field of presenting industrialists provided many examples of Nanomedicine will require a strong involvement of UK pronounced links to an array of industries that take chemists and is thus an area of opportunity. advantage of the outcome of the UK chemistry research activities and academic education. Overall, Chemistry and Chemical Engineering the focus of chemistry in the UK seems too narrow to According to the UK Institution of Chemical Engineers include chemical engineering. This is perhaps a missed (IChemE) in its simplest form, chemical engineering is opportunity. the design, development and management of a wide and varied spectrum of industrial processes. In addition 5.B. To what extent are UK researchers engaged to this occupational definition the American Institute of in “best with best” science-driven international Chemical Engineers (AIChE) defines chemical interactions? engineering as the profession in which knowledge of mathematics, chemistry and other natural sciences Summary Findings: gained by study, experience and practice is applied Active engagement in international scientific with judgment to develop economic ways of using collaborations materials and energy for the benefit of society. Thus, with the help of other disciplines chemical engineering Substantial pay-off from infrastructure translates chemistry into application. This idea investments, but future maintenance and originated in the late 19th century in the UK. With this running costs are a challenge proud tradition, the quality of chemical engineering research and academic education in the UK has always 5.B.1. What is the nature and extent of engagement been high and internationally recognised. An between the UK, and Europe, USA, China, important element in this connection might be the India and Japan? sustained interaction with the chemical, petrochemical and pharmaceutical industries. Many research groups in the UK are attractive partners for international scientific collaborations and they During the review week, the represented academic themselves are actively engaged in this. This is chemistry departments put forward very few examples evidenced by their participation in many European

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 23 Panel Responses to the “Framework and Subsidiary Questions”

research networks and has resulted in a significant scientists from overseas to permanent positions which fraction of publications with authors from outside of either strengthened existing research lines or the UK. Although these interactions are particularly established new ones. well-developed with Europe, promising new actions are currently being undertaken to expand this to Asia 5.B.3. Are there particular issues for the chemistry and North-America. The UK is seen as an attractive research area? What could be done to improve venue by chemists around the globe. Prominent international interactions? scientists have and continue to come to the top universities in the UK as visiting professors and on Although individual links were apparent, the Panel longer term sabbaticals, supported by a multitude of received little evidence for significant interactions with enabling schemes from the Research Councils, the the USA and India. This is perhaps not surprising Royal Society and various charities. because the emphasis continues to be centred on the EU and to some extent China. The Panel understands 5.B.2. How effective is the engagement between the that collaborative research initiatives have already UK and the rest of the world? begun to address the issue of global reach for UK science in general. Throughout the UK, major investments have been made in buildings and large equipment during the last 5.C. What evidence is there to support the decade. Given the present impressive infrastructure, it existence of a creative and adventurous research is to be expected that the international interactions base and portfolio? will further expand in the future. It will be a major challenge, however, to guarantee continued efficient Summary Findings: operation of the state-of-the-art equipment in the Risk-averse research culture with penalty for shared facilities within the new laboratories. failure too high Recommendation Funding policies do not encourage sufficient B.1: Strategic planning is needed and mechanisms transformative research need to be put in place to maintain, upgrade and, eventually, renew the equipment in the years to 5.C.1. Is the current balance between high-risk/high- come. In addition, qualified technical support return research and "safe research" personnel are needed to run the facilities, to appropriate? provide long-term continuity and to train the PhD students and post-doctoral scientists, who Transformative research typically refers to research that constitute the primary user base. has significant novelty in either its objectives or its methods. It often combines more traditional ideas in International interactions strongly depend on the new ways, and it can have great ambition in tackling exchange of young scientists. The newly established very hard problems. Two universal features characterise DTCs offer a sufficient critical mass in selected such research. First, it is high-risk. Transformative research areas to interact with research schools research proposals by their nature will require outside of the UK. Moreover, it is appreciated that researchers to make leaps that can seem challenging, travel funds are explicitly provided for this to the perhaps impossible. The second feature, only apparent DTCs. after its completion (sometimes years after), is that it is of high impact often on multiple disciplines. Thus, Recommendation publications describing transformative research often B.2: Provision to support international exchange, as have very high citation rates and effectively ‘spawn’ appropriate, should be made available to PhD new sub-disciplines and lines of inquiry. students funded through other means than DTCs, for example DTAs. Using this definition, overall UK chemistry research is not universally characterised by a risk-taking The improvement of the international competitiveness (adventurous) research culture. As a result, the Panel of UK science, relative to 2002, is evidenced by its did not see many examples of truly transformative ability to attract a number of well-established research at an international level. The Panel notes that

24 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Panel Responses to the “Framework and Subsidiary Questions”

UK chemistry research is characterised by high quality This is an area in which funding policies could have a and rigor, but it is perhaps not adventurous enough. substantial effect on research culture. First, The level of risk-taking was low and, although notable transformative research programmes by their nature exceptions do exist (often in areas of growth since the are not ‘directed’ and are likely to arise most last Review) there were few examples seen of real frequently in the responsive mode. Research Councils breakthroughs in chemistry. should look to these programmes as the crucibles for these types of activities. Next, because of the high-risk 5.C.2. What are the barriers to more ‘adventurous associated with such grants it is probably necessary to research’ and how can they be overcome? create separate reviews and separate criteria for such efforts. Examples of this in the US include NSF and Transformative research necessarily involves risk, and NIH responsive mode programmes designed for high- researchers and their research culture, funding risk, high-payoff research and exploratory research agencies and government must accept this reality. grant mechanisms that send these types of proposals Current funding levels and implementation for separate review. Perhaps, longer duration PhDs mechanisms are a significant barrier to adventurous may be required for such activities. Moreover, it is research. The Panel found that investigators were probably also generally true that a longer funding writing too many short-term “safe” grant proposals period will help chemistry researchers take more risk in with understandably narrow goals and consequently their research. Nevertheless, the Panel found many that they had little time for discretionary “high- examples of high creativity and innovation in areas risk/high-return” blue sky work. ranging from synthesis to supramolecular chemistry, with notable instrument development, environmental Recommendation and geochemistry, plus stellar examples in materials C.1: Increase the number of long-term single PI plus remarkable chemical biology and theory. There initiated grants to stimulate more adventurous were also stunningly successful examples of spinouts research. If these grants are processed via derived from adventurous work. responsive mode there should be a cap to ensure a sufficient number of grants can be awarded. Recommendation Importantly, such grants should not be in C.2. The Panel suggests a need for stakeholders to competition with very large grants. examine with the chemistry community how best to improve the effectiveness of responsive mode The short PhD training duration is a second barrier to grants in enabling more adventurous research. creating a culture of pursuing adventurous research as its focus tends to be largely time-based as opposed to 5.D. To what extent is the UK chemistry achievement-based. Moreover, the short duration community addressing key technological/societal encourages ‘play it safe’ and makes challenging challenges through engaging in new research transformative research that much more difficult to opportunities? pursue. Summary Findings: Several panel members expressed the opinion that the The situation is much improved since 2002 short PhD training period coupled with a typical short post-doc period of two years does not well support the Opportunities for integration across disciplines development of truly independent investigators with are not yet fully realised between the physical & the clarity of vision and direction to launch their life sciences, engineering and medicine independent research careers as junior lecturers, or even 5-year research fellows. Indeed, the duration of 5.D.1. What are the key technological/societal training to independent status seems to be roughly 2-4 challenges and research directions in chemistry years shorter than international norms in chemistry. research? To what extent is the UK chemistry Researchers are seemingly forced to develop too quickly research community focused on these? Are and thus are trained to develop risk-averse behaviour. there fields where UK activity does not match the potential significance of the area? Are 5.C.3. To what extent does Research Council funding there areas where the UK has particular policy support/enable adventurous research? strengths?

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 25 Panel Responses to the “Framework and Subsidiary Questions”

Chemistry has a long tradition of addressing issues of for chemistry as a discipline had not been harnessed societal concern and contributing to economic to the full extent. development through timely technological advances and innovations - the chemical and pharmaceutical In the information provided, the Panel noted a smaller industries are but two examples. As the world moves focus on energy related research than the opportunity towards dealing seriously with the issue of or the magnitude of the problem requires. In areas sustainability, major societal challenges related to such as drug discovery, imaging and diagnostics, energy needs, climate change, health and wellbeing, green and environmentally benign processes, the management of water resources, and preservation of Panel encountered some significant successes with the environment, among others will require chemistry- participation from industry. based new technological interventions and solutions. Recommendation The Panel found some degree of awareness among D.2: It is suggested that wherever critical the chemistry research community of these emerging interdisciplinary depth exists, centres or research challenges and societal expectations. Moreover, the groupings be created, preferably through public- recognition was evident that chemistry has a key role private partnership and adequate long term and much to contribute as an enabling central funding, to find solutions to some of the key science. The situation is much improved since the last societal concerns. International Review (the ‘Whitesides’ Review). However, to date there has been a limited response by Such structured and focussed research efforts will play the Research Councils to these challenges and an important role in developing future leaders of opportunities, which will obviously require full international stature. harnessing of the multidisciplinary connectivity of chemistry. There are pockets of relevant excellence 5.D.3. Is the research community structured to deliver distributed throughout the UK but overall the scale of solutions to current and emerging activity is inadequate for the task at hand. technological/societal challenges? If not, what improvements could be implemented? Recommendation D.1: The research community and the Research The consensus view of the Panel was that the Councils should work together to define priorities question here is poorly posed. (balance core versus societal needs) and also jointly develop new support structures to enable the UK to Recommendation contribute effectively to the transformational D.3: The research community and Research research needed in the decades ahead. Councils should work in partnership to define the emerging technological/societal challenges and 5.D.2. In terms of the defined remits of the relevant jointly craft appropriate ways to deliver solutions. research council programmes, are there any areas which are under-supported in relation to 5.D.4. Are there a sufficient number of research the situation overseas? If so, what are the leaders of international stature evident in the reasons underlying this situation and how can UK? If not, which areas are currently deficient? the situation be remedied? While the UK can be justifiably proud of it world- The EPSRC very recently initiated a dialogue with the leading chemists, most of them are near or beyond Chemistry community to identify ‘grand challenges’ the traditional retirement age. A few much younger for chemistry and in so doing provided a platform to leaders have been recognised by national awards and begin to address the major issues of societal concern. prizes but there are insufficient numbers for the size The preliminary findings offered some potentially of the discipline. Many UK Chemistry departments worthy challenges to the core of chemistry. However, seem to have an age distribution profile peaked the Panel viewed the goals of this exercise as too around 40 and are thus potentially poised to generate narrow to embrace the full range of necessary a substantial number of new leaders in the near disciplines to meet the criteria of true societal Grand future. Challenges (see 5.I.). Thus the spectrum of possibilities

26 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Panel Responses to the “Framework and Subsidiary Questions”

Recommendation D.4: The Research Councils, the Royal Society and charities should enhance their efforts to identify and support emerging leaders in chemistry.

5.E. To what extent is the chemistry research base contributing to other disciplines and multidisciplinary research?

Summary Findings: Some awareness among chemists of opportunity to solve major societal challenges by linking to other disciplines Effective response requires commitment to multidisciplinary connectivity

There is evidence of an improved situation relative to that seen in the previous International Review. However, the extent falls short of what is likely to be necessary to move effectively into new areas and conduct cutting edge research that is competitive on exception, evidence was lacking of effective and the international scene. productive collaborations with engineering. The barriers are likely derived from too narrow a definition 5.E.1. What evidence is there that there is sufficient of chemistry in the UK. The current situation presents research involving investigations from a broad an opportunity for DTCs. range of traditional disciplines including materials, physics and engineering as well as 5.E.3. What evidence is there to demonstrate the chemists? influence that funding has had in encouraging multidisciplinary research? The organic/polymer science interface is a good example of integration of chemistry with physics and There is evidence of well-intentioned efforts to materials but there is seemingly little integration of encourage interdisciplinary research through DTCs and chemistry with the discipline of chemical engineering. programmes but not so many multidisciplinary efforts. In addition, there is some evidence of co-location of For example, the very recent attempt to define grand research activities involving interactions across the challenge initiatives could be viewed as an encouraging interfaces with life sciences and medicine but this but incomplete attempt to move the community in this opportunity has yet to be fully exploited. However, the direction. However, it is important to preserve the situation is evolving in a positive way, with selected fundamental core chemical research so that the UK will examples of joint appointments across disciplines. have the knowledge base to solve the next, unknown problems of society. As mentioned above, more care 5.E.2. Are there appropriate levels of knowledge needs to be taken to define the multidisciplinary grand exchange between the chemistry community challenges at a broad enough level to allow for and other disciplines? What are the main chemists to exercise their full range of ideas and barriers to effective knowledge and information capabilities and tangible social benefits to emerge. flow and how can they be overcome? Recommendation See previous answer. In tackling ambitious, complex E.1: More DTCs and other mechanisms are needed problems, not to mention Grand Challenges, it is to help define local, regional and even national necessary to view the goals broadly from a number of efforts with sufficient “mass” to have a global different perspectives, including an appreciation of the impact. contributions engineering can make. With some

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 27 Panel Responses to the “Framework and Subsidiary Questions”

5.F. What is the level of knowledge exchange committing significant long-term research support between the research base and industry that is outside the UK have generated concern about future of benefit to both sides? relationships. There is a perception that multinational companies demonstrate more commitment and Summary Findings: sustainable interest in supporting flow of knowledge and people outside of the UK. DTC programmes with industrial emphasis add value to academia and economy Recommendation Excellent examples of translational research via F.1: Appropriate mechanisms should be developed partnerships and spinouts through partnerships between stakeholders to encourage UK industry to continue to invest Excellent examples of knowledge exchange between resources (e.g. people, finances) into academic academia and industry certainly exist throughout the chemical research. UK. Collaborative (sponsored research), DTCs and the existence of vigorous spin-off companies offer 5.F.3. To what extent does the chemistry community evidence of a healthy climate. There is clear progress take advantage of research council schemes to since the last International Review. The current enable this knowledge exchange? Is there situation helps academia understand technically more that could be done to encourage challenging problems while industry in turn gains knowledge transfer? access to state-of-the-art chemistry. However, the Panel sensed a note of general concern in the At one level it is evident that the chemistry community chemistry community going forward, due to the does take advantage of schemes from regional current economic situation. governments and the Research Councils to enable knowledge exchange via support of graduate 5.F.1. What is the flow of trained people between students. The Panel sensed community concern about industry and the research base and vice versa? the longer term viability of such schemes. Is this sufficient and how does it compare to international norms? Recommendation F.2: Academia together with industry could be Industry sponsorship is very visible and diverse ranging further encouraged to build a more visible, from studentships (via several schemes) to faculty collaborative framework for exchanging knowledge positions on the one hand and from joint research in both directions. In particular, appropriate programmes to physical buildings on the other. The government agencies should consider helping to interaction between industrial and academic partners develop programmes that help companies make is often utilised as a base for recruiting into industry. longer term commitments to industry-academic However, two-way flow of people between industry partnerships. and academia is less visible than in the USA, where the demise of major industrial research labs led to a 5.F.4. What is the scale of industrial R&D in chemistry large scale migration out of industry to academia and nationally and internationally and what is the consequently fewer examples of the reverse. trend? What are the implications for the UK chemistry research community and to what 5.F.2. How robust are the relationships between UK extent is it well-positioned to respond? Is there academia and industry both nationally and any way that its position could be improved? internationally and how can these be improved? The Panel was told that chemistry was considered vital Typically, R&D goals and the corresponding financing to the economic wellbeing of Scotland because 10% need to be well structured and managed. In successful of the GDP in Scotland can be related in one way or programmes new technologies are pulled into industry another to the chemical industry (broadly defined). rather than being pushed by academia. Clear two-way Overall, for the UK the number was stated to be communication with industrial feedback is needed to between 1 and 2%. Unfortunately, the Panel did not demonstrate and sustain commitment. Some recent have the time or resources to fully address this vitally high-profile examples of UK-based industry important economic question. However, the

28 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Panel Responses to the “Framework and Subsidiary Questions”

perception from the Panel’s perspective was that at more than one location. The Panel was reluctant industrial R&D is currently a vital component of UK plc (indeed, unqualified) to attempt to assess the impact and that it is going to be even more important in the of these examples on wealth creation in a quantitative future. The pharmaceutical industry holds a special manner. However, it seems a distinguishing feature of place in the UK chemistry landscape. Major blockbuster UK Chemistry that it has been able to launch a drugs have been discovered in the UK, by researchers significant number of vigorous and successful spinout whose scientific origins can be traced back to PhD companies. studies and training in organic chemistry. A challenge going forward will be to sustain the competitive Recommendation research environment and creativity pipeline in the UK G.1: A significant number of spinout companies are in the present evolving global marketplace. successfully exploiting UK chemistry research. These examples of chemistry innovation are worthy of Recommendation more detailed investigation by the Research F.3a: The RSC and other stakeholders, in Councils and stakeholders as templates for success. partnership with the chemistry community, should commission an in-depth study of the importance of 5.G.2. How successful has the UK chemistry the UK chemistry research base to UK industry and community (academic and industrial) been at the national economy. innovation? What are the barriers to successful innovation in chemistry in the UK and how can F.3b: Research Councils and stakeholders should these be overcome? commence a dialogue on ways to stimulate creativity and innovation in approaches to Although many examples of successful licensing and Knowledge Transfer; the ‘Open Innovation’ spinouts were evident, a recurrent theme was the approach adopted in the Netherlands is a model increasing cost of doing research in the UK universities deserving further consideration. and the difficulty of securing appropriate IP agreements. The establishment of a clear framework 5.G. To what extent is the UK Chemistry research and pooling of resources between industry and activity focussed to benefit the UK economy and academia beyond what is already evident, could result global competitiveness? in more profound impact in various areas like job generation and could significantly boost efforts to Summary Findings: address societal challenges in energy, sustainability and health care. Multiple examples of successful spin-offs National advantage possibly derives from flexible Recommendation schemes for sharing of intellectual property G.2: Further efforts should be made to improve the interface between academia and industry across the Major innovations are apparent in selected areas, various sub-disciplines of chemistry. This includes including polymers and colloids, supramolecular and technology transfer and IP management. medicinal chemistry, as well as chemical biology. This is evident in the number and quality of spin-offs/start- The above comments are based on the panel’s up companies across the UK clearly with origins in the perceptions derived from the four-day International chemistry community. The cited examples are ones in Review of the UK chemistry research base. More which knowledge has already been commercialised quantitative assessments and recommendations are and jobs have been created. contained in the recent review of the UK government’s science and innovation policies “The 5.G.1. What are the major innovations in the Race to the Top” by Lord Sainsbury of Turville chemistry area, current and emerging, which (October 2007)4. are benefiting the UK? Which of these include a significant contribution from UK research?

The Panel was told of several examples of spin-out companies with significant market capitalisations and 4 http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/sainsbury_review051007.pdf

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 29 Panel Responses to the “Framework and Subsidiary Questions”

5.H. To what extent is the UK able to attract but prestigious two - or three-year Research talented young scientists and engineers into Fellowships. The Research Fellows, as temporary chemistry research? Is there evidence that they postdoctoral researchers, would be excluded from are being nurtured and supported at every stage applying for research grants to support personnel and of their career? would thus become again what they were originally intended to be, namely positions where individuals Summary Findings: could pursue their dreams and develop their own ideas without having to write grants or supervise Early Career Researchers (ECRs) suffer overall students. Other postdoctoral positions operating from insufficient mentoring and inadequate under faculty supervision would remain, again with funding the restriction of not being eligible to seek No clearly defined path for ECRs to academic independent research funding. success 5.H.1. Are the numbers of graduates (at first and Absence of diversity: gender, ethnic, cultural higher degree level) sufficient to maintain the UK research base in this area? Is there sufficient Members of the Panel spoke to a large number of demand from undergraduates to become ECR scientists at every institution visited and, overall, engaged in chemistry research? How does this found them to be a high-quality and productive compare with the experience in other countries? group. However, not surprisingly, there was considerable variation in the responses relevant to the The Panel was presented with anecdotal evidence that issues posed in this Framework Question. The Panel the number of undergraduate students studying found widespread and vastly heterogeneous chemistry has increased significantly over the past 5 dissatisfaction with the plethora of fellowship and years and that the quality of these students in terms other schemes used in part to recruit ECRs in the UK. of the standard metrics had also improved significantly. In addition there appeared to be a Recommendations corresponding increase in graduate students but the H.1: The majority view on the Panel was that the Panel was unable to verify this. At one institution it recruiting mechanism into tenured faculty (lecturer) was stated that 40% of the PhD graduates went positions, and the treatment of ECRs in general in directly into industrial positions, with the balance the UK, needs to be improved in favour of a well- taking postdoctoral fellowships or, in limited numbers, defined career path. positions outside professional chemistry. None of the many industrial representatives the Panel met with H.2: There is a lot to be said in favour of introducing indicated that there was a shortage of chemistry a tenure track system decreasing sharply the number graduates (at any degree level) and from the opposite of post-doctoral fellows in perceived tenure-track- perspective none of the academic presentations like situations and increasing the number of real indicated that there was a large over production of tenure track appointments in the universities. chemistry graduates. (The student's perspective on this matter was not solicited systematically.) A tenure track system would introduce a fair and effective selection of people that from the Panel’s 5.H.2. How effective are public engagement activities perception does not occur at present. This could aimed at attracting school age students into perhaps be achieved by introducing faculty positions, chemistry? albeit of diverse character, with a standardised probationary period on appointment of, for example, Some of the visited institutions enthusiastically 5 years. These probationary faculty members would be reported on their public outreach programmes granted certain resources by the university, would be including the invitation of large numbers of students eligible to apply for research grants with the full range (plus parents and grandparents) from the schools to of resources, and would be judged for promotion to a visit the departments and even to participate in some tenured appointment based upon their productivity laboratory demonstrations. The numbers of such and the quality of their research and teaching output visitors was stated to be in the thousands or higher. during the probationary period. Such tenure track Particularly impressive was a presentation describing appointments would be in contrast to shorter term

30 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Panel Responses to the “Framework and Subsidiary Questions”

online outreach including a "You Tube" video on the periodic table of the elements that has already received greater than a million "hits" worldwide. One member of the Panel stated that his daughter had shown him this several weeks ago, but without citing its origin. Such an approach to community outreach was extremely cost effective, reaching more than a thousand individuals per pound invested. Such outreach activities help to project a positive public perception of chemistry and of the academic institutions involved, but there appears to be no obvious metric establishing the resulting effect on attracting additional school age students into the discipline.

5.H.3. Are there areas of weakness - is the UK producing a steady-stream of researchers in the required areas and/or are there areas that should be declining to reflect changes in the research climate?

The Panel notes the failure of the UK universities for of accomplishment driven may have unintended the most part to attract significant numbers of the consequences on the quality of the research very best postgraduate students from the global pool. accomplished and the development of the students as This failure seems to be due mainly to structural creative research scientists. Given that there is little problems originating in UK government regulations room for failure in a time-limited thesis project there concerning the eligibility of international students for could be a reluctance to take risks in choice of public support. For example, graduate student research problems. stipends and tuition payments through the DTA mechanism are largely restricted to UK citizens, with Several industrial representatives were queried some exceptions for EU students. However, even the regarding their view of the Chemistry PhDs they hired. latter appear to face impediments and restrictions Response to this question was mixed. In one case, the drawn from bilateral national agreements. individual asked clearly stated that the UK students are not as well prepared or as mature as those from Another concern is the emphasis on time limits for other EU countries, especially, the Netherlands or PhD students rather than requiring a PhD to be based Germany. Other representatives did not seem to be as on accomplishments. This was also discussed in the concerned. In a discussion with a group of ‘Whitesides’ Review. Although in some cases changes industrialists, the need for PhDs that are more broadly have been introduced with the goal of extending the educated was expressed. In particular, problem solving funding of student stipends to four years, there were skills, mathematical skills, communication skills and reports that indicated problems with such extensions, judgment skills were emphasised. for example, issues regarding the consistency with which these restrictions were applied. The Doctoral The Panel’s view is that the common international Training Centres (DTC) programme (with a well standard for awarding of a PhD degree is based on a organised four year curriculum) address this aspect to marked achievement in research. This seems to run some extent, although the dedication of the first year counter to the UK's practice of a PhD award after of a DTC appointment to more generalised training completion of a thesis in a prescribed time period of 3 and education (including some rotation through to 4 years, which is short compared to that in some, several research laboratories) still leaves only three but not all competitor countries. The Panel notes that years for the post-graduate students to commit to a mandated (short) period likely inhibits the pursuit of their thesis research and writing. Furthermore, any adventurous, and hence risky projects, as well as the programme where the timing is process driven instead pursuit of the most challenging research at the

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 31 Panel Responses to the “Framework and Subsidiary Questions”

interface of disciplines. The mandated short period The strength of the UK system is that these ECR fellows also limits the student's exposure to problem solving have considerable freedom to pursue the research opportunities and independent scientific growth. directions of their choice. However, a weakness is that the overwhelming majority of research fellows seemed Recommendation to imagine they were effectively in tenure track H.3: PhD requirements in the UK should give more situations, which for the most part was evidently not emphasis on achievement and be flexible enough the case; it is a further weakness that the funding to allow up to 5 years, if necessary, for completion structure for ECRs in these positions discourages them without penalty to the individual involved. A flexible from tackling high risk projects. approach would not prohibit 3 or 4-year PhDs but overall would probably allow for more adventurous 5.H.5. To what extent is the UK able to attract research. overseas chemists to the UK? Is there evidence of ongoing engagement either through 5.H.4. How does the career structure for chemists in retention within the UK research community or the UK compare internationally? through international linkages?

In many countries, it is typical for new PhD graduates There are some recent examples of exceptional intending an academic career to immediately assume scientists that have been recruited from overseas back a postdoctoral research position, usually at a leading to the UK; an observation that seems to indicate many academic laboratory or national facility. For UK UK institutions have the flexibility to compete albeit students this is particularly critical owing to the short selectively on the international scene. duration of the PhD degree programme and a number of the ECRs interviewed had either been in one 5.I. Other observations and recommendations postdoctoral laboratory for a lengthy period or had held several postdoctoral appointments. In addition to the Framework Questions a number of key observations warrant inclusion: Commonly, the next stage in the UK seems to be an appointment to a position as either a junior lecturer or Are ECRs suitably equipped to embark on to a highly competitive longer term (EPSRC or RS) research careers? Research Fellowship. A similar stage in Germany One major overall weakness in the UK system is the would have the individual in one of the new "junior near absence of significant start-up funds from the professorships" or as a habilitation candidate, both academic institution for new young faculty members. temporary positions. In the US, the appointment This practice is in stark contrast to that in the US, would be as an assistant professor in a tenure track where the start up funds for an assistant professor at position. In both of the latter positions, considerable an academic research institution typically range up to resources are provided by the institution: laboratory $1,000,000, or in the EU, where the start-up funds renovations and funds for equipment and supplies can also be generous. In addition, the structure of the (typically $0.5-1M or more in the US), access to current funding for ECRs available from EPSRC is graduate students supported by teaching completely incompatible with even the current 3 year assistantships, released time from teaching, etc. PhD system, because of the requirement that the limited funds be expended within 2 years. A new By comparison, the institutional support of ECR lecturer is forced to write tens of applications to fund scientists in the UK is dramatically less, although it is a research group of critical mass. While the Panel did quite variable. It appears that some institutions give see a few examples of young faculty members who very little, while others are more generous, providing were able to fund a research group of critical mass access to one or more students and support for through the present system, these ECRs would likely supplies and equipment, although nowhere near the have been both more productive and creative had levels seen in the US. Of even more concern to the their effort gone into the execution of research as Panel is the range of different appointments given the opposed to the writing of multiple proposals. These various flavours of fellowships (spanning 2-10 years), anecdotal stories highlight the perceived unevenness some of which come with considerably more support and unfair treatment of ECRs in the present UK than others. system of support.

32 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Panel Responses to the “Framework and Subsidiary Questions”

The lack of institutional support for ECRs also affects between all Research Councils and the chemistry the choice of faculty hired at an institution. The panel community. Given its central role as a funder of basic observed and heard explicit statements to the effect chemistry the issue is particularly acute for the EPSRC, that certain frontier areas for recruiting (e.g., modern which has experienced in the recent past an increase in physical chemistry) are being avoided because the demand from the research community that significantly equipment for start-up is not available and perceived exceeds the growth of resources made available by the as ‘too expensive’ for current schemes. This is UK government. It is precisely under such affecting established researchers but it is especially a circumstances, however, that government and problem of ECRs and thus likely to harm the future academia need to redouble their efforts to sustain efforts directed at, for example, energy research. open and clear communication. This communication is Seemingly, instead of hiring the best young people, not one way but instead must engage both sides. institutions are choosing to hire only those scientists whose research can be executed on equipment of Recommendation minimal cost or by utilising already available I.2: EPSRC and stakeholders of the International infrastructure in the department. This practice stifles Review should open a dialogue with leaders of the creative, innovative research and propagates ‘research UK Chemistry community to develop strategies for as usual’. This might have some influence on the guaranteeing the health of academic chemistry in perceived common practice of many institutions to the decade ahead. Key elements to be considered hire their own postdoctoral students. include not only the appropriate ratio of responsive mode versus programme and platform grant Recommendation support, what to do about the current cap on First I.1: There is an urgent need to address the current Grants, whether or not to cap the size of responsive failure of existing mechanisms of research support mode grants, and convene an external panel to to direct resources into university chemistry examine the nature of the scientific review process departments for equipment and start-up funds; an (including whether or not to limit the number of issue that is hampering the development of the proposals). discipline in emerging areas that demand technologically sophisticated and expensive Chemistry and Society instrumentation for start-up. An anecdotal finding emerged in the magazine Business Week during the International Review that might be Research Councils and their Communities worthy of further investigation. It is widely known that The Panel offers the following summary concerning young people generally do not favour careers in science issues where action is required: and engineering, seeing them as too ‘geeky’; however, the overwhelming student response to a recent • Improve engagement between the academic conference to discuss the most important challenges chemistry community and the Councils. facing society and how engineering and science can help solve them shows just how motivational linking • Improve engagement between the Councils and career choices to such challenges can be5. the academic chemistry community. Recommendation • Peer-review should be sought and considered at all I.3: Adopt the key societal challenges (Energy, stages of proposal processes. Sustainability, Climate, Environment, Health) as the framework basis for strategic planning and direction • International advice and industrial input into involving science education. Specifically it could be funding policies, decisions and processes. an excellent strategy to fold into and somehow leverage a national dialogue on Societal Grand • Mechanisms to encourage academics to more Challenges of opportunity as a way to engage the actively link research to broad social needs. science community and the public. In so doing, the role of chemistry as a central discipline will emerge. EPSRC-Academic Interface The limited funding available for academic chemistry in 5 http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2009/ the UK creates a tense environment for communication tc2009036_224059.htm

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 33 Panel Responses to the “Framework and Subsidiary Questions”

Faculty Diversity special relationship to the drug discovery enterprise, The singular most distinctive signal sent to the which has demonstrated significant global impact on International Review Panel was the failure of the health and wellness. The Panel had testimony various units visited to highlight their women faculty. indicating that the chemical industry is a significant Of all the scientists chosen to make presentations to contributor to the output and income of UK plc the International Committee, none of the academic through the production of fine chemicals and derived and only one of the industrial presentations to the consumer products. It also received testimony ‘West’ sub-panel was female and none would have concerning the significant number of block-buster been considered an ethnic minority. The situation for drugs produced by the UK pharmaceutical industry (in the ‘East’ sub-panel was only marginally better. proportion significantly more than by US companies). Apparently, few of the institutions were willing to Moreover, the origin of this success can be traced “risk” reputations by advancing a woman as a back to researchers whose PhDs were in fundamental spokesperson. This observation was particularly organic chemistry. If the quoted numbers stand up to surprising given that the Panel perceived that a scrutiny, by, for example, the RSC and stakeholders of substantial fraction of the ECR faculty is female the International Review outcomes, then it is likely (lectures and plethora of research fellows). While the that a strong case can be made to seek novel ways to latter observation could be viewed as a potentially boost R&D efforts involving this sector. The most positive development, there are issues with regard to effective way to achieve this end is probably through the perceptions held by these female ECR lecturers thoughtful and constructive dialogue involving the and fellows regarding their chances at promotion Research Councils, Industry (SME and large), and the and/or subsequent career advancement that cannot academic chemistry community. be interpreted as representing a level playing field. Recommendation Recommendation I.6: UK plc needs to boost its R&D investments in I.4: The Research Councils and Chemistry the UK to stay globally competitive. community should carry out a detailed study of the diversity of university educators and researchers in Proposal Overload the UK to establish if there is a reason for concern. The Panel was given evidence of a significantly If there is a systematic problem direct steps should overloaded peer review system for research grant be taken to rectify this at all levels with respect to proposals. Moreover, funding success rates were hiring, promotion and rewards. typically 20% or less. The Panel also heard from one ECR who had submitted 15 proposals this year and Foreign Graduate Students another who had already submitted 9 proposals. This The current funding schemes for graduate students in is surely an untenable situation calling out for some the UK seem to make it challenging to recruit form of control to be instigated (as, for example, in chemistry graduate students from the excellent global other countries) both by the Research Councils and pool, especially from Asia. The Panel was presented university administrations. Moreover, when the with an imaginative solution to this problem that number of fundable proposals is similar to the number involves support from a regional government that of panellists carrying out the review the system is ripe seemed to appreciate the crucial role that chemistry for abuse through tribalism and bias. has in the regional economy. UK chemistry is likely to be missing out on an opportunity to increase the Recommendation talent pool from which to execute its research. I.7a: The Research Councils open thoughtful and constructive dialogue with the academic Chemistry Recommendation community on how to limit the burden on all I.5: Create viable mechanisms to support foreign concerned. graduate students. I.7b: The Research Councils should carry out a Does chemistry get its fair share of industrial thorough and independent review (with research funding? international representation) of its funding A significant challenge going forward will be to ensure mechanisms and procedures. that the UK chemistry research community retains its

34 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Panel Responses to the “Framework and Subsidiary Questions”

Societal Grand Challenges The UK government sees sustainability, the environment, health (and wellbeing), energy and security as being among the most significant challenges facing UK society and its economy.

Multidisciplinary collaborative science involving chemistry and its many sub-disciplines has an obvious and critical role to play in coming to grips with certain aspects of these societal challenges; indeed, the ‘Whitesides’ Review anticipated the need for UK Chemistry to think more expansively about its link to societal grand challenges when it highlighted opportunities in materials, chemical biology, green chemistry and national security back in 2002.

Unfortunately, the Panel had insufficient time during its 4-days of site visits to probe the role of chemistry in helping the UK face these daunting challenges. It is the Panel’s view that this role should be articulated through extensive dialogue with the science and could possibly be the key to a sustainable future (see engineering community. This process seems to have also: Graham Fleming & Mark Ratner, Physics Today, begun but not yet concluded. The Panel’s view is that July 20087). there is a danger in attempting to define the grand challenges too closely to a single discipline, although Grand Challenges for Engineering: there are obvious examples where a particular The US National Academy of Engineering recently discipline might play a leading role. identified 14 Grand Challenges awaiting solutions in the 21st century8. Many of these challenges are The Panel offers the following tentative observations: multidisciplinary and involve chemistry: environmentally friendly power, capturing the carbon • Societal Grand Challenges need chemistry. dioxide, computer-created virtual realities, improved methods of instruction and learning, sustaining the • Need dialogue with funders and within the ageing infrastructures of cities and services, quality community to evolve and refine the UK Chemistry and quantity of water, reverse-engineering the brain, role in key societal grand challenges. countermeasures for nitrogen cycle problems, develop new medicines, computerised catalogues of health • Panel reserves comment on the current situation information, nuclear fusion, enhancing exploration at until the aforementioned process is complete. the frontiers of reality and knowledge, reducing vulnerability to assaults on cyberspace. • Scientific community is struggling with this globally; see examples of actions from US: DOE and NAE.

Examples of Actions from US: DOE and NAE

Grand Challenges in Basic Energy Sciences: A recent DOE report in the US: Directing Matter and Energy: Five Challenges for Science and the Imagination6 concluded that research focused to 6 http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/abstracts.html#GC ultimately allow unprecedented control over the 7 http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/list.html microscopic world (electrons, atoms, and molecules) 8 http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 35 6.0 Overall Recommendations Overall Recommendations

The following recommendations were developed by 6.1. Nurture and Support Early Career Researchers the Panel on the basis of the presentations and (ECRs) discussions during the review. Other recommendations Institutions in the UK have too many mechanisms for are contained in the main body of the report. providing ECRs with a starting career. Some of those that have been introduced by the Research Councils 1. Create viable mechanisms to encourage research (e.g. Career Acceleration Fellowships) and the Royal independence among early career researchers9. Society University Research Fellowship Scheme provide a level of support for research expenses including some 2. Develop a viable strategy for sustaining the start-up money, ability to support students, etc. A excellent infrastructure, shared facilities and number of these ECRs spoken to by the Panel had nationally funded facilities. already served previously in the same institution, either as a graduate student or as a post-doctoral researcher. 3. Build on regional strengths: pooling, as The best of the ECRs that the Panel encountered had appropriate, between local universities to create also spent time in post-doctoral training outside the UK. centres of excellence, alliances with research For the most part, ECRs holding the aforementioned councils and regional development agencies. fellowships were very satisfied with their situation. Perhaps even more significant was the pervasive feeling 4. Open a dialogue with the research community to: that a permanent job would arise eventually, although not always at their present location. At some • Create mechanisms that support high-risk universities in the UK there are also special dedicated research. (college) Junior Research Fellowships designed for individuals to carry out creative work unburdened by • Define the role of chemistry in Societal Grand typical faculty duties. There seems to be however a Challenges. much larger group of ECRs who are typically directly appointed to either shorter-term fellowships or junior 5. Support for PhD students should be more academic positions by institutions offering minimal focussed on achievement and less time-bound support mechanisms; they are effectively being (education versus training). penalised by lack of start-up funding and career guidance support. Areas in need of emphasis and encouragement: The Panel had the impression that overall, considerable 6a. Energy (compare with the US which has finally resources are being directed toward ECRs in the acted boldly by funding of 46 Energy Frontiers potpourri of fellowships that are available. It seemed to Research Centres10). the Panel worthwhile to consider redirecting those resources to create a structure that more uniformly: a) 6b. Drug Discovery (there is a role/opportunity for encourages the best of the best to pursue an academic universities – spinouts and ‘big Pharma’). career in UK Chemistry, b) gives those ECRs an opportunity to prosper and develop to their fullest 6c. Materials for Medicine (Nanomedicine and more). potential, and c) is sufficiently transparent to be fair. In seeking to accomplish this the aim should not be to 7. Integrate Computation Chemistry (there is a treat all ECRs equally; mechanisms should be able to need to enhance the participation of theory and selectively recognise and reward only the best. The computation especially in areas that involve energy current spectral range of post-doctoral fellowships and health applications). spanning 2 to 10 years and the spectre of writing 10 or so proposals per year is surely not optimal. 8. Failure of current administrative structures and Moreover, it is not to the UK’s advantage that many funding mechanisms into university departments ECRs do not have a real road map for their career. to provide for medium-size equipment and start- 9 up funds. (In the US, NIH is taking aggressive action; see Encouraging Early Transition to Research Independence: Modifying the NIH New Investigator Policy to Identify Early Stage Investigators: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-121.html) 10 http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/EFRC.htm

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 37 Overall Recommendations

A majority of the Panel thought that the UK should rather used to pay the “gas-bill”. Moreover, it was create a tenure-track-like system. By becoming more mentioned several times that even with the current selective and, at the same time, more transparent the 80% FEC it is impossible for the universities to system would give the ECRs well defined goals and by appoint support-personnel from this additional budget giving significant start-up funds and competitive or use it for research related actions such as new access to substantial grants for a given period through faculty start-up. From the university perspective, the special proposals, the new system would also help introduction of FEC has gone some way to them to be more independent with respect to senior compensating the perceived subsidy of research from scientists in their own institutions. If fellowships from teaching income. Research Councils and/or the Royal Society are a major (the principal) mode of funding such probationary Going forward, the cost of maintaining these central faculty members, then there should also be some facilities may be a driving force for a new focus on mechanism to ensure that they and the institution shared local and regional facilities rather than commit to provide sufficient start-up resources to institutional-level provision which seems to allow these ECRs to fully and independently exploit predominate at the moment. This could be one step their creativity and be judged on the results. towards creating a viable long-term solution. In addition, while it probably goes against the culture of Recommendations typical Chemistry departments, internal recharging 6.1.a: Create a tenure track probationary period of against research grants might provide a partial about 5 years for ECRs where excellence in mechanism for sustaining such shared facilities. teaching and in research is the criteria for promotion to tenure. The UK national Large Scale Facilities delivering neutron and synchrotron x-rays, such as ISIS and 6.1.b: There is an opportunity for the Research Diamond, are indispensable tools for modern research Councils, the Royal Society, other charities and involving many of the vibrant areas of chemistry, institutions to form partnerships in equalising the including physical, materials, supramolecular and opportunities for ECRs, more clearly defining the biological sub-disciplines. Similarly, the EPSRC National expectations and possibilities of a given ECR Mass Spectrometry Service is a jewel in the crown of position. Specifically, there is a need to make special EPSRC centrally provided services. Facilities such as provision for funding for ECR start-up. these should be a national priority.

6.2. Develop a viable strategy for sustaining the Recommendation excellent infrastructure, shared facilities and 6.2: Create a dialogue with stakeholders to set in national facilities place policies, procedures and mechanisms to sustain the recently created infrastructure, shared One of the most striking observations for the Panel facilities and nationally funded facilities and enable during the Review was the excellent laboratory actions such as salary support for university infrastructure that has been set up in the UK during technical research support staff, etc. Evaluate if the the past decade. Large investments have been made FEC scheme is achieving its original goals. for new buildings, as well as for large pieces of “general” equipment, such as mass spectrometers, 6.3. Build on regional strengths, pooling as large NMR machines, and the like. However, to ensure appropriate between local universities to create that optimum use is going to continue to be made of centres of excellence, alliances with Research the existing infrastructure it appears that funding for Councils and Regional Development Agencies highly trained research technicians is urgently needed for maintenance of the equipment, training of PhD Pooling between local universities to create centres of students and post-docs, etc. The Panel was initially excellence, and building alliances with Research told that the idea behind the “full economic costing” Councils and Regional Development Agencies is, of (FEC) model was that the universities would be able to course, occurring to some extent already. The Panel use this additional budget to take care of such issues. notes the positive influence in those examples that it However, at all universities visited the Panel heard that saw. Such activity is a way to build critical mass and this FEC money is not used for this, but that it is hence strategic advantage in particular fields. It is a

38 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Overall Recommendations

way to create employment opportunities. The Regional Development Agencies are most effective (and capable of doing this) in the areas where traditional industry has declined and government stimulus is being provided for regeneration. The Panel certainly saw sufficient evidence of successful outcomes that these kinds of partnerships should be encouraged elsewhere. [see Chapter 9 “The Race to the Top” by Lord Sainsbury of Turville (October 2007)]11.

A pressing area of need is to develop a viable strategy for sustaining the excellent infrastructure, shared facilities, as well as national facilities that have resulted from the past decade of investment by government. In particular, there is a need for expanding and sustaining the participation of the chemistry community in effectively utilising those facilities. Pooling resources at a local and regional level should be a way to improve research infrastructure in the UK. instrumentation, should be handled separately from Recommendation competitions with capped grants. 6.3: Pooling resources at a local and regional level should be encouraged in order to improve and One unconstrained area of research is in the DTA. A stimulate more efficient and effective use of PhD student can work on anything that is funded by a research infrastructure in the UK. DTA. On the other hand, no PhD adviser is likely to suggest a really high risk project for a starting PhD 6.4. EPSRC portfolio balance, responsive mode student as they do need some chance of getting versus programme/platform grants and sufficient results for a PhD. A longer PhD would allow mechanisms for sustaining high risk research the introduction of some high risk research in the later stages. The concern expressed repeatedly to the Panel There is no doubt that the Panel heard a strong plea by the Chemistry community is that the institutions from the Chemistry community at large for more (rather than Departments) have now been given the funds to be made available in responsive mode as that overall management of distribution of DTA funds, with is the area where UK chemists have felt that they have the result that support for doctoral training by this traditionally delivered their best funded research which mechanism from the Research Councils may not has been unencumbered. Inevitably, the more necessarily reflect the success (or lack of success) in recommendations the Panel makes about use of allocation of Research Council competitive funding to Research Council funds for other activities (e.g. ECR, traditional subject areas. PhD, etc) the smaller the amount available for responsive mode. The counter point of view, Responsive mode versus Defined Programmes expressed by a minority of the community but strongly Fundamental research is an important and necessary endorsed by the Panel, was that such opportunities part of any research portfolio. However, researchers for adventurous creative endeavours could still be also have to respond to real or perceived societal found for research carried out under “signposted” needs, so focusing some fraction of the research and programme projects. The Panel also heard a plea portfolio into defined programmes does not seem from the community to set a cap on the size of unreasonable to the Panel. Indeed excellent possible responsive mode funding in order to allow an fundamental research can still result, so from the increase in the success rate of proposals. The Panel’s perspective the current UK system is not far suggestion was offered that large responsive mode grants, including those demanding large-scale 11 http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/sainsbury_review051007.pdf

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 39 Overall Recommendations

out of balance. However, there is a view in the that funding for “intermediate size” equipment Chemistry community that often (wrong) priorities are appears to be very difficult to secure. The Panel heard, being set by the wrong people (no matter how well for instance, that the UK is far behind other countries meaning they may be). This issue is related to having in the area of surface-probe techniques (STM, AFM, more scientific input to the decision making process single molecule spectroscopy) as well as in the field of and giving more authority to panels to affect the ultrafast lasers and femto-chemistry. For these fields outcomes. If the pot of money for responsive mode is investments of typically 200-500k Euro are required too small for everyone to be funded, so be it. The for individual researchers, and it seems that it is not challenge is to put the money where there is the the total amount of money that is the problem, but potential for highest impact. the fact that it is to be spent/used by a single researcher that makes securing these funds so Thematic proposals can contribute to dynamic difficult. In part, this is connected to the problem that research, but much depends on how the programmes there are no start-up funds for young faculty, but it are built and by whom, and also on the competence also holds for more established researchers who of the reviewers in the targeted area of research. Thus would like to start a new line of research, or take there is nothing intrinsically wrong with making calls advantage of a recent technology breakthrough to for proposals that are “thematic” or “programmatic” advance their research agenda. provided they are not too specific, and provided that suitably qualified reviewers judge the fitting (or lack of Recommendation it) of proposals to any particular call. 6.4.b: The possibilities to secure medium-size (individual PI) investment grants in targeted In the Netherlands, individual PI projects with FOM12 research areas should be strengthened. Examples are now organised such that they have a time-limit of include modern physical chemistry equipment to four years and a financial cap of about 550k Euro probe ultrafast phenomena, single molecule (exceptions possible), whereas the programmes can phenomena, etc. run for as long as ten or even fifteen years, and have in principle no financial cap; this has turned out to be 6.5. PhD degree to reflect achievement a good mix. As articulated in the ‘Whitesides’ Review, ideally the Recommendation PhD degree should emphasise creative achievement 6.4.a: Consider putting a cap on the responsive rather than technical training. The idea that the mode (individual PI) projects. agenda for granting a research degree might be driven primarily by the timing rather than by Create Mechanisms that Support High-risk accomplishment or at least by personal development is Research inconsistent with this view. The Panel noted that in The Panel was enthusiastic about setting up some UK universities the 3-year DTA-funded PhD mechanisms to stimulate more adventurous research. degree is evolving to a somewhat longer time period. What are such mechanisms? In a sense, extensive peer Also, for example, the DTC supported PhDs are 4 review run by professional grant managers tends to years. However, the Panel saw no need for the UK to create either a common denominator approach or evolve to the US model where PhDs take at least 5 personal fiefdoms run by the managers. There needs to years to finish, and often much longer. Evolving to a be explicit input by scientific panels composed of model where students are expected to complete their international experts who contribute to the decision graduate studies in a timely fashion but with sufficient making. Another mechanism is to give grants long flexibility that creative achievement is the basis for enough lifetimes so that there are longer horizons to granting the degree would be a worthy goal. In explore higher risk projects, while providing ring-fenced Europe, the situation is far from uniform, even with funding for independent ECRs should also tend to the “Bologna process” which not everybody liked. stimulate more adventurous curiosity-driven research. Germany lost their cherished “diploma” to be

Start-up Equipment

Having complimented the UK on the large investments 12 The Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter, Netherlands that have been made, the Panel is compelled to state (http://www.fom.nl/live/english/about/introduction_to_FOM.pag)

40 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Overall Recommendations

replaced by an inferior MSc degree; a change that means 3 years for a BSc and 2 for a MSc before a PhD can be started. In this case a 4-year PhD is too long, given the 8-year cap on higher education. The key question for the UK is to decide if it wants to be closer to the US or the European system. The Panel’s observations suggest that typical PhD training programmes last from between 3.5 to 5 years and that the mechanisms in place should be sufficiently flexible to provide this range of training in the UK. Such flexibility should allow for an emphasis on accomplishment which in turn should generate more creative outcomes.

Recommendation 6.5: DTA funds and internal university PhD degree awarding mechanisms should be adjusted to allow elasticity in the duration of the PhD training programme, but certainly not beyond 5 years.

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 41 7.0 Concluding Remarks Concluding Remarks

The Panel enthusiastically embraced the International Calibre of ECRs Review process and found it to be informative and a The pool of ECRs currently in the UK Chemistry very worthwhile experience. The breadth of activities departments is certainly very good quality and more covered by the Framework Questions and the limited diverse than the permanent faculty. This is an time to accomplish the task necessarily made for a encouraging development since the ‘Whitesides’ somewhat high level overview. Looking forward, the Review. The challenge going forward is to provide a panel offers the following general observations: well-defined career path with adequate research funding for the best of the best to not only chase Health of chemistry their dreams but also to remain in the UK. Overall, chemistry in a much healthier state than it was in 2001/2002. There are pockets of word-leading Knowledge exchange and transfer and world-class research distributed throughout the Stunning examples of vigorous and successful start- community. The age distribution in many departments ups signal a strong change of attitude within the UK is such that chemistry is well-positioned to produce a Chemistry community since the last International new generation of leaders. There are potentially Review. The current economic situation will likely dangerous gaps in the intellectual core of the dampen temporarily the success rate of such actions. discipline that may be related to lack of investment by Changes in the global situation for the chemical and the Research Councils. pharmaceutical industries could be an opportunity for UK chemistry to exploit. However, issues relating to IP Vision/ambition of researchers and the FEC model will likely need to be dealt with Although there are some notable exceptions, there is creatively by the stakeholders if the UK is to maintain a perception that overall, UK Chemistry lacks some its recent successes and capitalise on global changes. ambition. Possible reasons for this are discussed in the body of the text, which also contains recommendation Societal grand challenges on how to deal with this issue, which in part is There is an urgent need for the UK to act boldly to possibly linked to the treatment of ECRs as well as play its full role in tackling the societal challenges other factors. Longer term responsive mode grants facing humanity. As already mentioned many times in would certainly help the situation. this Review, chemistry has a central role to play in achieving viable solutions to many of the key issues. Core versus multidisciplinarity There is a pressing need for the leaders of the UK As the world faces the grand challenges of Chemistry community to play their full part in setting sustainability, energy, the environment, health and the agenda for the future role of chemistry in this wellbeing, multidisciplinary research efforts will arena. There is also a need for the Research Councils expand in importance. Chemistry undoubtedly has a and other government agencies to act swiftly to set central role to play. The challenge facing UK Chemistry the UK agenda. is to define its role. Finding the ‘correct’ balance between the ‘core’ and multidisciplinary endeavours is likely to involve selectivity and focus.

Critical Mass The view of the Panel is that overall the UK chemistry research community is perhaps overly dispersed across a rather large number of departments. Over the next decade, unless a compelling case can be made for an input of new funding to chemistry, this situation will likely lead to an unhelpful dilution of the research base. While acknowledging that this is a complex and emotive issue the Panel suggests that where appropriate, a measure of strategic consolidation could do much to help all stakeholders deliver on many of the recommendations that arise from this review.

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 43 Glossary of Abbreviations Glossary of Abbreviations

ABPI Association of the British IP Intellectual Property Pharmaceutical Industry JIF Joint Infrastructure Fund AFM Atomic Force Microscopy MRC Medical Research Council AIChE American Institute of Chemical Engineers NERC Natural Environment Research Council

BBSRC Biotechnology & Biological Sciences NAE National Academy of Engineering (USA) Research Council NIH National Institutes of Health (USA) BERR Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform NMR Nuclear Magnetic Resonance

CIF Capital Investment Framework NSF National Science Foundation (USA)

CIKTN Chemistry Innovation Knowledge PI Principal Investigator Transfer Network QMUL Queen Mary, University of London DIUS Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills QUB Queen's University Belfast

DOE Department of Energy (USA) RAE Research Assessment Exercise

DSTL Defence Science and Technology R&D Research & Development Laboratory RS Royal Society DTA Doctoral Training Account RSC Royal Society of Chemistry DTC Doctoral Training Centre siRNA Small interfering RNA (Ribonucleic acid) ECR Early Career Researcher SME Small or Medium Enterprise EaStCHEM The Edinburgh and St Andrews Research School of Chemistry SRIF Strategic Research Infrastructure Fund

EFRCs Energy Frontier Research Centers (USA) STFC Science & Technology Facilities Council

EPSRC Engineering & Physical Sciences STM Scanning Tunnelling Microscopy Research Council TSB Technology Strategy Board EU European Union UCL University College London FEC Full Economic Costing UEA University of East Anglia GDP Gross Domestic Product WestCHEM Joint Research School in Chemistry of HESA Higher Education Statistics Agency the Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde IChemE Institution of Chemical Engineers

IoP Institute of Physics

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 45 Annexes Annex A: The International Review of Chemistry: Evidence Framework. Questions and Subsidiary questions

A. What is the impact on a global scale of the UK research? To what extent is the UK chemistry Chemistry research community both in terms of research community focused on these? Are research quality and the profile of researchers? there fields where UK activity does not match the potential significance of the area? Are i) Is the UK the international leader in chemistry there areas where the UK has particular research? In which areas? What contributes to strengths? the UK strength and what are the recommendations for continued strength? ii) In terms of the defined remits of the relevant research council and other funders ii) What are the opportunities/threats for the programmes, are there any areas which are future? under-supported in relation to the situation overseas? If so, what are the reasons underlying iii) Where are the gaps in the UK research base? this situation and how can it be remedied?

iv) In which areas is the UK weak and what are iii) Is the research community structured to deliver the recommendations for improvement? solutions to current and emerging technological/societal challenges? If not, what B. To what extent are UK researchers engaged improvements could be implemented? in "best with best" science-driven international interactions? iv) Are there a sufficient number of research leaders of international stature evident in the i) What is the nature and extent of engagement UK? If not, which areas are currently deficient? between the UK, and Europe, USA, China, India and Japan? E. To what extent is the chemistry research base interacting with other disciplines and ii) How effective is the engagement between the multidisciplinary research? UK and the rest of the world? i) What evidence is there that there is sufficient iii) Are there particular issues for the chemistry research involving investigators from a broad research area? What could be done to range of traditional disciplines including life improve international interactions? sciences, materials, physics and engineering as well as chemists? C. What evidence is there to support the existence of a creative and adventurous ii) Are there appropriate levels of knowledge research base and portfolio? exchange between the chemistry community and other disciplines? What are the main i) What is the current volume of transformative barriers to effective knowledge and research and is this appropriate? information flow and how can they be overcome? ii) What are the barriers to more "adventurous research" and how can they be overcome? iii) What evidence is there to demonstrate the influence that funding programmes has had in iii) To what extent does Research Council funding encouraging multidisciplinary research? policy support/enable adventurous research? F. What is the level of knowledge exchange D. To what extent is the UK chemistry between the research base and industry that community addressing key is of benefit to both sides? technological/societal challenges through engaging in new research opportunities? i) What is the flow of trained people between industry and the research base and vice versa? i) What are the key technological/societal Is this sufficient and how does it compare with challenges and research directions in chemistry international norms?

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 47 Annex A: The International Review of Chemistry: Evidence Framework. Questions and Subsidiary questions

ii) How robust are the relationships between UK iii) Are there areas of weakness - is the UK academia and industry both nationally and producing a steady-stream of researchers in internationally and how can these be the required areas and/or are there areas that improved? should be declining to reflect changes in the research climate? iii) To what extent does the chemistry community take advantage of research council schemes to iv) How does the career structure for chemists in enable this knowledge exchange? Is there the UK compare internationally? more that could be done to encourage knowledge transfer? v) To what extent is the UK able to attract overseas chemists to the UK? Is there evidence iv) What is the scale of industrial R&D in of ongoing engagement either through chemistry nationally and internationally and retention within the UK research community what is the trend? What are the implications or through international linkages? for the UK chemistry research community and to what extent is it well-positioned to vi) Are early career researchers suitably equipped respond? Is there any way that its position to embark on research careers? could be improved? vii) Is the combination of deep subject knowledge G. To what extent is the UK Chemistry research and ability to work at subject interfaces/ activity focussed to benefit the UK economy boundaries appropriate? and global competitiveness? viii) Is the UK community engaging in the i) What are the major innovations in the changing trends in the UK employment chemistry area, current and emerging, which market? are benefiting the UK? Which of these include a significant contribution from UK research? I. Other Issues

ii) How successful has the UK chemistry • The review should not be constrained by the community (academic and industrial) been at questions in the evidence framework; views wealth creation? What are the barriers to on any other relevant issues are welcomed. successful innovation in chemistry in the UK and how can these be overcome?

H. To what extent is the UK able to attract talented young scientists and engineers into chemistry research? Is there evidence that they are being nurtured and supported at every stage of their career?

i) Are the numbers of graduates (at first and higher degree level) sufficient to maintain the UK research base in this area? Is there sufficient demand from undergraduates to become engaged in chemistry research? How does this compare with the experience in other countries?

ii) How effective are public engagement activities aimed at attracting school age students into chemistry?

48 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Annex B: Brief Biographies of Panel Members

PROFESSOR MICHAEL L. KLEIN (CHAIR) River, NY, & Cambridge, MA and 150 chemists at GVK Bio in Hyderabad, India. In September 2008 Professor Professor Michael Klein received his Abou-Gharbia joined Temple University as tenured formal education in the United Kingdom Professor of Medicinal Chemistry and Director of their and after postdoctoral periods in Italy, the newly created Centre for Drug Discovery Research United Kingdom, and the United States (CDDR). began an independent research career at the National Research Council of Canada. Over the years Professor Abou-Gharbia’s group research In 1987 he joined the University of Pennsylvania, where efforts led to the discovery of four marketed drugs and since 1993 he has been Hepburn Professor of Physical many compounds currently under clinical evaluation Science and Director of the Laboratory for Research on including: first-in-class antidepressant Effexor®; the the Structure of Matter. In the latter capacity he is anticancer agent Mylotarg®; an anticancer rapamycin responsible for nurturing collaborative interdisciplinary derivative, Torisel™ (temsirolimus); an SNRI anti- materials research involving faculty from the Schools of depressant, Pristiq® (DVS-233); a broad spectrum Arts and Sciences, Engineering and Applied Sciences, antibiotic Tygacil®, and a non-steroidal HRT Viviant™, and Medicine. His research is focused on the computer (Bazedoxifene®). modelling of physical and biological systems from a molecular perspective. Professor Abou-Gharbia’s scientific contributions include over 180 invited lectures, presentations and Professor Klein serves on many academic and publications; inventor on 99 US issued US patents and government review panels and advisory boards over 350 patents worldwide. Awards include: Science internationally. He is a Fellow of several learned and Technology Medal from the R&D Council of New societies, including the Royal Society (London), the Jersey (2008); selected among the Top 10 Scientists in Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of New Jersey by New Jersey Business Magazine (2008); Canada, the Indian Academy of Sciences, the National Induction to ACS Medicinal Chemistry Hall of Fame Academy of Sciences of the United States, the (2008); ACS Heroes of Chemistry (2008); Alfred Burger American Academy of Arts and Sciences and TWAS, Award in Medicinal Chemistry (2008); American the Academy of Sciences of the Developing World. Institute of Chemists (AIC) Chemistry Pioneer Award (2007); Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry (FRSC PROFESSOR MAGID ABOU-GHARBIA 2006); Researcher of the Year (2006) from Health Care Institute of NJ (HINJ); Trailblazer Award (2006) from Professor Magid Abou-Gharbia received Science Spectrum; Induction into the New Jersey his BS in Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Inventors Hall of Fame (2004); The Procter Medal Sciences in 1971, MS in Medicinal (2003); ACS Earle B. Barnes Award (2001); Philadelphia Chemistry in 1974 from the faculty of Organic Chemists Club (POCC) Award (2001); Egyptian Pharmacy, Cairo University, and PhD in Pharmaceutical Society Drug Discovery Award (2000); 1979 from the University of Pennsylvania Named as one of the most Prolific Inventors of the under Professor Madeleine Joullié followed by a two- Decade by US Patent & Trade Mark (1998); ACS year NIH Postdoctoral Fellowship at Temple University Philadelphia Section Award (1997); Wyeth-Ayerst Medical School. Professor Abou-Gharbia joined Wyeth Exceptional Achievement Award (1992); and others. Drug Discovery and Development in 1982 as senior scientist and advanced through roles of increasing Scientific and Professional activities include membership responsibility to Senior Vice President & Head of on C&E News Advisory Board; Dow’s Womens Advisory Chemical & Screening Sciences. In this position, he built Board; UK Research Council Review Board; ACS Corp. a strong multi-disciplinary Chemical & Screening Associates & Award Canvassing Committees; SFN; Sciences (CSS) organisation. During his tenure Professor AAAS; NYAS; The Royal Society of Chemistry (FRSC)p; Abou-Gharbia fostered a highly creative environment Board of Visitors, Temple University School of Pharmacy; based on modern drug discovery technologies and and the Editorial and Scientific Advisory Boards of many enhanced chemistry skills and capabilities via the journals. Academic Appointments include Adjunct recruitment of high calibre scientists. He oversaw the Professor of Medicinal Chemistry, Northeastern research efforts of over 500 scientists at four Discovery University, Centre of Drug Discovery (CDD), Cairo Research sites in Collegeville, PA; Princeton, NJ; Pearl University and the University of Ferrara, IT.

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 49 Annex B: Brief Biographies of Panel Members

PROFESSOR ANNA BALAZS American Chemical Society Award in Pure Chemistry, Nobel Laureate Signature Award, Young Investigator Professor Anna Balazs is a Distinguished Awards from Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, as well as Professor of Chemical and Petroleum Astra Zeneca, and a recipient of the David and Lucile Engineering at the University of Packard foundation Fellowship in Science and Pittsburgh. She is also the current Robert Engineering. Von der Luft Professor in that department after serving as William The research programme is focussed on four Kepler Whiteford professor from 1999-2001. interrelated areas of organic synthesis: catalysis, methodology, natural products synthesis and Professor Balazs received a Masters of Science from bioorganic chemistry. Drawing heavily from the areas the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and of organometallic and coordination chemistry, as well went on to earn her PhD from the same university. as molecular recognition, the group is developing Her postdoctoral research was completed at Brandeis novel catalytic and stoichiometric reagents for University, MIT, and the University of Massachusetts. chemical synthesis. The group is particularly focused She has also held the position of visiting professor at on the identification of novel chemical reactivity as the the Scripps Research Institute, the University of Texas foundation for the development of practical, at Austin, and University of Oxford, UK. convenient catalytic processes employing readily available starting materials. The crafting of strategies The research interests of Professor Balazs centre on for the total synthesis of natural products and their theoretical and computational modelling of the successful realisation in the laboratory not only thermodynamic and kinetic behaviour of polymer provides opportunities in which to showcase the blends and composites. She is also investigating the methods discovered and developed within the group, properties of polymers at surfaces and interfaces. but also affords a platform on which to explore new Specifically, ongoing projects involve: predicting the reaction methodology. Additional research interests phase behaviour of polymer/clay nanocomposites, include the synthesis and study of small molecule determining the kinetic behaviour of binary mixtures modulators of pharmacokinetic properties in drug containing solid particles, designing polymeric discovery. Professor Carreira has authored 160 inhibitors to prevent cell-virus contact, tailoring the research publications and holds 20 patents. interactions between polymer-coated colloids, promoting adhesion at polymeric interfaces, designing PROFESSOR SYLVIA T. CEYER patterned polymer films and investigating the tribological behaviour of polymer interfaces. Professor Sylvia T. Ceyer is the Associate Chair of the Department of Chemistry PROFESSOR ERICK M. CARREIRA and the J. C. Sheehan Professor of Chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute Professor Erick M. Carreira obtained a of Technology. She received her B.A. B.S. degree in 1984 from the University summa cum laude in chemistry from of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign under Hope College in 1974 and her PhD from the University the supervision of Scott E. Denmark and of California at Berkeley in 1979 under the a PhD degree in 1990 from Harvard advisement of Professors Y. T. Lee and G. A. Somorjai. University under the supervision of David After a postdoctoral appointment at the National A. Evans. After carrying out postdoctoral work with Bureau of Standards, she accepted a position as Peter Dervan at the California Institute of Technology assistant professor at MIT in 1981. Professor Ceyer is a through late 1992, he joined the faculty at the same physical chemist with research interests in the area of institution as an assistant professor of chemistry and molecule-surface reaction dynamics as related to subsequently was promoted to the rank of associate heterogeneous catalysis and the reactive molecular professor of chemistry in the Spring of 1996, and full etching of silicon. professor in Spring 1997. Since September 1998, he has been professor of chemistry at the ETH Zürich. Professor Ceyer is a fellow of the National Academy of Most recently, he is the recipient of the Tetrahedron Sciences and the former chair of its chemistry section, Chair Award, Thieme Prize, the Springer Award, the secretary of the Physical and Mathematical

50 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Annex B: Brief Biographies of Panel Members

Sciences Class of the National Academy of Sciences, a Currently she serves as Kenneth S. Pitzer- fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Schlumberger Professor of Chemistry and Professor of a fellow of the American Association for the Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering. Professor Colvin Advancement of Science and a fellow of the American also serves as Co-Director of Richard E. Smalley Physical Society. She has been awarded the J. Willard Institute for Nanoscale Science and Technology and Gibbs Medal, the Hope College Distinguished Alumni Director of the Center for Biological and Award, the Edgerton Prize, the American Association Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN). CBEN was one of University Women's Young Scholar Award and has of the first Nanoscience and Engineering Centers been the holder of a Sloan Fellowship and a Camille funded by the US National Science Foundation. One and Henry Dreyfus Teacher-Scholar award. Professor of CBEN's primary areas of interest is the application Ceyer has received the Baker Award for of nanotechnology to the environment. undergraduate teaching, the School of Science Teaching Prize and the Nobel Laureate Signature Professor Colvin has received numerous accolades for Award for Graduate Education from the American her teaching abilities, including Phi Beta Kappa's Chemical Society. In 1998, she was named a MacVicar Teaching Prize for 1998-1999 and the Camille Dreyfus teaching fellow at MIT. Teacher Scholar Award in 2002. She was named one of Discover Magazine's "Top 20 Scientists to Watch" Professor Ceyer is presently a member of the Basic and received an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship in 2002. Energy Sciences Advisory Committee for the Her research in low-field magnetic separation of Department of Energy, and a member of the editorial nanocrystals was named Top Five (no. 2 of 5) board of Chemical Physics. Most recently, she served as Nanotech Breakthroughs of 2006 by Forbes/Wolfe an associate editor of Physical Review Letters, a Nanotech Report, and resulted in her being named member of the National Research Council's 2007 Best & Brightest Honouree by Esquire Magazine; Benchmarking the Research Competitiveness of US she was also named a Fellow in the Association for Chemistry Committee, a member of the Program the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2007-2008. Committee of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a councillor of the Professor Colvin is also a frequent contributor to American Physical Society. She has held numerous Science, Advanced Materials, Physical Review Letters named lectureships including the Dreyfus Lecturer at and other peer-reviewed journals, having authored/co- Dartmouth University, Willard Lecturer at the University authored over 75 articles, and holds patents to seven of Wisconsin, Tetelman Lecturer at Yale University, inventions. Harkins Lecturer at the University of Chicago, Welch Foundation Lecturer, Chancellor's Distinguished PROFESSOR GRAHAM R. FLEMING Lecturer at the University of California Berkeley and the Langmuir Lecturer of the American Chemical Society. Professor Graham Fleming serves as Melvin Calvin Distinguished Professor of PROFESSOR VICKI L. COLVIN Chemistry and Vice-Chancellor for Research at University of California, Professor Vicki Colvin received her Berkeley. Professor Fleming joined the Bachelor's degree in chemistry and faculty of the University of Chicago in physics from Stanford University in 1979. He served as the Arthur Holly Compton 1988, and in 1994 obtained her PhD in Distinguished Service Professor of UC, since 1987. At chemistry from the University of UC, he served as the Chairman of the Chemistry California, Berkeley. During her time at Department. He was instrumental in the creation of the University of California, Berkeley, Professor Colvin UC's first new research institute in more than 50 was awarded the American Chemical Society's Victor years, the Institute for Biophysical Dynamics. K. LaMer Award for her work in colloid and surface chemistry. Professor Colvin completed her postdoctoral In 1997 he moved to UC Berkeley and the Lawrence work at AT&T Bell Labs. Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). At LBNL, he created the Physical Biosciences Division and was its In 1996, Professor Colvin was recruited by Rice Director from 1997-2005. From 2002-2005, he was University to expand its nanotechnology programme. also LBNL's Associate Laboratory Director for Physical

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 51 Annex B: Brief Biographies of Panel Members

Science and was appointed Deputy Laboratory InterAmerican Photochemical Society. In 1989, Director from 2005-2007. At UC Berkeley, he has Professor Ford was the organiser and Chair of the 8th been the Director of the California Institute for International Symposium on Photochemistry of Quantitative Biosciences (QB3) from 2000 to present. Coordination Compounds and in 2001 he was Chair His research interests lie in ultrafast processes in of the Gordon Research Conference on Inorganic condensed phases with particular emphasis on the Reaction Mechanisms. For the period 2004-2006, primary steps of photosynthesis. He is an authority on Professor Ford served as President of the ultrafast processes and has authored or co-authored InterAmerican Photochemical Society. over 400 publications. He has a BSc from the University of Bristol, and a PhD from the Royal DR HENRIK HAHN Institution/University College London. He was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Dr Henrik Hahn received his diploma in Sciences in 1991, FRS in 1994, member of the Process Engineering from the University National Academy of Sciences in 2007, and Fellow of of Hannover, Germany in 1993. After 5 the American Association for the Advancement of years of scientific work in the field of Science in 2009. rheology and obtaining a PhD from the University of Essen, Germany he started PROFESSOR PETER C. FORD his industrial career within the former Degussa AG (now Evonik Degussa GmbH) in the area of inorganic Professor Peter Ford joined the faculty of specialty chemicals in 1999. His international working the University of California, Santa experience within the group includes chemical Barbara after his PhD in Physical Organic engineering and project management at the interface Chemistry with Kenneth Wiberg at Yale between research and development. After assuming University and an NSF Postdoctoral responsibilities as Head of a Multi-Purpose Pilot Plant Fellowship in Inorganic Chemistry with and the Project House Process Intensification - a cross Henry Taube at Stanford University. He has been a Business Unit R&D unit - he became Managing Visiting Fellow of the Research School of Chemistry of Director of Evonik Litarion GmbH in 2007. Under the the Australian National University, a Guest Professor at roof of Evonik Litarion the Evonik group bundles the University of Copenhagen, a visiting professor at research, development and production of components the Universities of Regensburg and Muenster and a for large format lithium-ion cells for automotive and Guest Investigator at the US National Cancer Institute industrial applications. This includes the polymer Radiation Biology Branch in Bethesda. At UC Santa reinforced ceramic SEPARION® separator and the Barbara, Professor Ford has served as the Department LITARION® high energy and high power electrodes. Graduate Advisor, Vice Chair and Chair and as Research Advisor for nearly 60 PhD graduates and PROFESSOR ANDREW B. HOLMES numerous B.S., M.S. and postdoctoral students. Professor Ford's research has long been concerned Professor Andrew Holmes obtained his with understanding the thermal and photochemical B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees at the University reaction mechanisms of organometallic and of Melbourne where he worked with coordination compounds. His current interests include Professor L.M. Jackman. His PhD (1971) the bioinorganic chemistry of the nitrogen oxides, the on heteroannulenes with Franz catalytic conversions of biomass feedstock, and the Sondheimer at University College photochemistry of metal based compounds. London was supported by a Shell (Australia) Science Scholarship. The transition to natural products Professor Ford's research and teaching contributions synthesis was made as a result of a postdoctoral spell have been recognised with a Dreyfus Foundation- at the E.T.H. working on the final stages of the Teacher Scholar award, with a Senior Fulbright synthesis of vitamin B12 with Professor A. Fellowship, by an A. von Humboldt-Stiftung US Senior Eschenmoser. He was appointed to an assistant Scientist Research Prize (1992,1999), with the 1992 lectureship at Cambridge in 1972. In 1977 he gained Richard C. Tolman Medal of the American Chemical tenure and was appointed to a lectureship until he Society, by election as a Fellow of the AAAS (1993) took the position of Director of the Melville Laboratory and by the 2008 Award in Photochemistry of the for Polymer Synthesis in 1994. He was promoted to a

52 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Annex B: Brief Biographies of Panel Members

personal Readership in 1995 and to a personal around the world. He has broad ranging interests in Professorship in 1998. In September 2004 he moved organic chemistry but the current focus is on natural to become Professor of Organic and Polymer products synthesis and design of new strategies for Chemistry at Imperial College and in October 2004 total synthesis. He has served on the Editorial boards was also appointed ARC Federation Fellow and of over a dozen leading Journals in chemistry. inaugural VESKI Fellow at the Bio21 Institute at the University of Melbourne and at CSIRO Molecular and He has been the President of the Indian National Health Technologies. Science Academy (1999-2001) and founding Co-Chair of the Inter Academy Council (IAC, 2001-2006). He is Professor Holmes' research interests span a range of Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS), Foreign Member of natural and non-natural synthetic targets and his the Russian Academy of Sciences, Fellow of TWAS and polymer research spans a range of functional and Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry. He electroactive polymers. He was the recipient of a is a recipient of over 40 medals/awards including the Leverhulme Royal Society Senior Research Fellowship Trieste Prize in chemical sciences and the Centenary for 1993/4, the 1994 Alfred Bader Award, the 1995 lectureship of the Royal Society of Chemistry and over Materials Science Award, the 2003 Tilden Medal and a dozen Honorary Doctorate (D. Sc. h.c) degrees have the 2003 Macro Group Medal of the Royal Society of been conferred on him. Until recently, he was the Chemistry. He was a 1999 Novartis Fellow, the President of the International Council for Science Dauben Lecturer at Berkeley in 2000, the Aggarwal (ICSU). Lecturer at Cornell in 2002, Merck-Karl Pfister Lecturer at MIT in 2005. His collaborations in a number of PROFESSOR E.W. BERT MEIJER successful EU research networks led to the joint award of the Descartes Prize 2003. In May 2000 he was Professor Bert Meijer is Distinguished elected FRS and in April 2006 was elected to the University Professor in the Molecular Australian Academy of Science and the Australian Sciences and Professor of Organic Academy of Technological Science and Engineering. Chemistry at the Eindhoven University of He was appointed CSIRO Fellow in 2008. He was Technology, the Netherlands. After a Chairman of the Editorial Board of Chemical PhD in 1982 from the University of Communications from 2000-2003, has served as a Groningen (Organic Chemistry with Hans Wynberg) Principal Editor of the Journal of Materials Research and a 10-year career in industry (Philips and DSM) he (1994-2000) and as a member of the Board of Editors became Head of Molecular Science & Technology at of Organic Syntheses, Inc., (1997-2001). Professor Eindhoven University. His research is focused on Holmes is currently an Associate Editor of Organic supramolecular chemistry, functional organic materials, Letters and is a member of the editorial advisory board chemical biology and stereochemistry. of Chemical Communications and the Australian Journal of Chemistry. Professor Meijer received his undergraduate degree in Chemistry in 1978 at the University of Groningen. PROFESSOR GOVERDHAN MEHTA From the same university he obtained his PhD degree cum laude in 1982. He performed his PhD research in Professor Goverdhan Mehta is a leading the field of organic chemistry with a study on the researcher in the area of Chemical chemiluminescence of 1,2-dioxetanes under the Sciences and presently CSIR Bhatnagar. supervision of Professor Hans Wynberg. Previously, Professor Mehta has been the Director of the Indian Institute of Professor Meijer started his career at Philips Research Science (1998-2005) and the President Laboratories in Eindhoven (1982-1989), where he was (Vice Chancellor) of the University of Hyderabad active as research chemist in the field of functional (1994-1998), two of India's most prestigious academic organic materials, including (semi)- conducting institutions. polymers. From 1989 -1992 he was Head of the Department “New Materials” at DSM Research in A Fellow in India, he is an author of over 400 research Geleen, the Netherlands. In 1992, Professor Meijer papers in leading international journals and has started as Professor in Organic Chemistry in the delivered over 200 lectures in major conferences Department of Chemical Engineering and Chemistry

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 53 Annex B: Brief Biographies of Panel Members

at the Eindhoven University of Technology. In 2002 he Techniques are developed to achieve full control over was appointed also as Professor in the newly neutral molecules in the gas phase. established Department of Biomedical Engineering in Eindhoven. From 2004, he was appointed as Professor Meijer is an experimental physicist who Distinguished University Professor of Molecular obtained his PhD degree in 1988 from the University Sciences at his University. of Nijmegen in The Netherlands. He has worked on the high-resolution electronic spectroscopy of small From 1995 Professor Meijer was also adjunct Professor gas-phase radicals and on imaging of density and in Macromolecular Chemistry at the Nijmegen temperature distributions of such species in University. He was a visiting professor at the University combustion processes. During a post-doctoral stay at of Leuven, Belgium (1995), the University of Illinois, the IBM Almaden Research Center in San José, Champaign-Urbana (1998) and the University of California, USA, he has been involved in the early Florida, Gainesville, Florida (2003). From 2006 development of laser desorption to bring thermally onwards, he was a distinguished visiting professor at labile bio-molecules intact into the gas phase. In the the University of California in Santa Barbara and early nineties he has been involved in the first optical, chairman of the External Scientific Board of Royal NMR and STM characterisation of fullerene molecules DSM. Professor Meijer’s main research interests are the and crystals. He was installed as full professor in design, synthesis, characterisation and possible Nijmegen in 1995, and there he has developed a applications of supramolecular architectures, with variety of sensitive laser-based detection schemes for special emphasis on chirality, dendrimers, conjugated gas-phase molecules, most notably variants of the oligomers and polymers, and hydrogen bonding cavity ring down method. As director of the FOM- architectures, and their use in functional materials and Institute for Plasma Physics “Rijnhuizen” in biomedical applications. Nieuwegein, The Netherlands, (2000-2003), he has pioneered the use of infrared free electron lasers for Professor Meijer’s contributions to science are the structural characterisation of gas-phase clusters, recognised with the Golden Medal of the Royal Dutch nanocrystals and bio-molecules. He has explored and Chemical Society in 1993, the Arthur K. Doolittle developed the use of inhomogeneous electric fields to award of the American Chemical Society in 1995 and focus, decelerate and trap neutral polar molecules: the Silver Medal of the MacroGroup UK of the Royal different types of Stark decelerators, an electrostatic Society of Chemistry in 2000. In 2001, he was trap, and AC electric trap, a molecular storage ring awarded with the prestigious SPINOZA-Award of the and a molecular synchrotron have all been Dutch Science Foundation NWO. In 2006 he received demonstrated in his laboratory. the ACS Award in Polymer Chemistry. Professor Meijer is a member of the Royal Holland Society of Sciences Professor Meijer holds a professor position at the and Humanities (since 1997) and in 2003 he was University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands, and is (since elected as member of the Royal Dutch Academy of Art 2004) honorary professor in experimental physics at and Sciences. Professor Meijer is a member of many the Free University in Berlin, Germany. He is editorial advisory boards, including Chemical corresponding member of the Royal Dutch Academy Communications and Angewandte Chemie. Since of Arts and Sciences, member of the international 2005 he has been the Editor of Journal of Polymer advisory board of the Institute of Atomic and Science Part A: Polymer Chemistry. Molecular Sciences (Taipei, Taiwan) and of the Fritz Haber Minerva Centre for Molecular Dynamics PROFESSOR GERARD MEIJER (Jerusalem, Israel), member of the Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics board of the EPS, member of the Professor Gerard Meijer is director of the advisory board of the Dutch research organisation department of Molecular Physics at the FOM and he has been member of the NWO-Spinoza Fritz-Haber-Institut der Max-Planck- selection committee (2006-2008). He has been Gesellschaft in Berlin, Germany, since involved in the organisation of numerous (sessions at) the summer of 2003. In his department, international conferences and workshops. research is performed on the optical properties and dynamics of molecules, clusters and cluster-adsorbate complexes in the gas phase.

54 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Annex B: Brief Biographies of Panel Members

PROFESSOR HELMUTH MÖHWALD under constant pressure. Professor Parrinello’s scientific interests are strongly interdisciplinary and include the Professor Helmuth Möhwald completed study of complex chemical reactions, materials science his PhD at the Max-Planck-Institut of and protein dynamics. Biophysical Chemistry in Göttingen, Germany, and habilitated in physics at Professor Parrinello was born in Messina, Italy, and the University of Ulm. From 1978 to obtained his degree in physics in 1968 from the 1981 he worked for Dornier Systems, University of Bologna, Italy. Prior to moving to Friedrichshafen, before returning to academia and Switzerland in 2001 he was Director at the Max taking up a Chair of Physical Chemistry at the Planck Institute for Solid State Research in Stuttgart, University of Mainz in 1987. Germany, and before that his positions included research staff member at the IBM Research Laboratory Professor Möhwald has been director and a scientific in Zurich, Switzerland, and full professor at SISSA, member of the “Interfaces” department at the Trieste, Italy. He has been a Visiting Scientist at Max-Planck-Institut of Colloids and Interfaces in Imperial College, London, England; Oxford University, Golm/Potsdam since October 1993. His research England; Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago, USA; interests include amphiphiles, monolayers, IBM Research Laboratory, Yorktown, USA; and the polyelectrolyte films and capsules, fluid interfaces, and University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA. nanoparticles. He holds Guest Professorships at Zheijang University, Hangzhou, and Fudan University, Early in his career Professor Parrinello studied, by purely Shanghai, and an Honorary Professorship at the theoretical means, quantum and classical many-body University of Potsdam. systems, and in particular ionic liquids, for which he developed successful approximations. He became Memberships include President of the German Colloid interested in computer simulation while visiting the late Society (since 2004), Scientific Advisory Board and Jury Aneesur Rahman, one of the founding fathers of of the Austrian Nano Initiative (since 2004) and Head classical molecular dynamics. It was then that he of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Hahn Meitner developed the above-mentioned Parrinello-Rahman Institute, Berlin (since 2005). method, and also made a pioneering simulation of an F-center in ionic liquids, the first application of path Professor Möhwald has received a number of awards integral methods to a realistic system. Back in Trieste including Honorary Professor at the Chinese Academy he developed the so-called Car-Parrinello ab-initio of Sciences (Institute of Chemistry) (2006), Prix-Gay- molecular dynamics method, combining density Lussac, French Ministry of Research and Technology in functional electronic structure calculation and collaboration with the Alexander Humboldt molecular dynamics methods in a way that greatly Foundation (2007), Overbeek Medal of the European expanded the scope of both disciplines. Over the years Colloid and Interface Society (2007) and Honorary he has applied the methods to solid and liquid Doctorate of the University Montpellier, France (2008). semiconductors, structural phase transitions and hydrogen-bonded liquids, in particular water and water PROFESSOR MICHELE PARRINELLO solutions. Lately he has paid increasing attention to the simulation of complex chemical and biochemical Professor Michele Parrinello is currently processes. On the methodological side his main Professor at ETH Zurich, Switzerland. present focus is the development of metadynamics, a Together with Roberto Car he introduced new method for the study of rare events. the ab-initio molecular dynamics method, which he is still developing and For his research Professor Parrinello has been awarded applying. This method, which goes under numerous prizes, including the 2001 American the name of Car-Parrinello Method, represents the Chemical Society Award in Theoretical Chemistry, the beginning of a new field and has dramatically 1995 Rahman prize of the American Physical Society influenced the field of electronic structure calculations and the 1990 Hewlett-Packard Europhysics prize. He is for solids, liquids and molecules. He is also known for an External Scientific Member of the Max Planck the Parrinello-Rahman method of molecular dynamics, Institute for Solid State Research, a Fellow of the which permits the study of crystalline phase transitions American Physical Society and a Member of several

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 55 Annex B: Brief Biographies of Panel Members

academies among which the British Royal Society and storage and detection. Finally, Professor Raveau the Italian Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Professor discovered layered cobaltites, called “misfits”, whose Parrinello is on numerous advisory boards and on the remarkable thermoelectric properties are studied for editorial board of many scientific journals. He is author energy conversion at high temperature. of more than 450 publications and is one of the most cited scientists in physics and chemistry. He has given For his research he has been awarded by numerous lectures at most major industrial and academic Prizes, including the 1988 European Italgaz Prize, the laboratories, as well as plenary and invited talks at 1994 Bernard Matthias Prize, the 1988 Silver Medal of numerous important international meetings. CNRS, the 1993 Grande Médaille d’Or de la Société d’encouragement pour l’Industrie nationale. He is a PROFESSOR BERNARD RAVEAU member of several Academies, Academia Europea, Académie des Sciences of France, Institut de France, Professor Bernard Raveau received his and National Academy of Science of India. He has formal education at Ecole Nationale been recently awarded as fellow of the Royal Society Supérieure de Chimie de Caen as an of Chemistry in 2008. He was also distinguished by Engineer, and received his PhD degree in the President of State of Normandy as Chevalier de physics in 1966. He was Director of the l’Ordre National du Merite in 1988, and by the CRISMAT Laboratory associated with President of the French Republic as Chevalier de CNRS from 1986 to 2004 and, since 2001, is Director l’Ordre National de la Légion d’Honneur in 2001. of the National Research Centre of Technology, CNRT Officier dans l’Ordre des Palmes Académiques. He is “Matériaux”. also Honorary Doctorate of several Universities.

Professor Raveau is a specialist of crystal chemistry of PROFESSOR GIACINTO SCOLES transition metal oxides. His research is devoted to the synthesis of new materials with particular physical Professor Giacinto Scoles was born in properties, to the non-stoichiometry phenomena and Italy and raised there through the to the relationships between structure, chemical bond second world war. A few years after the and physical properties. Author of over 1400 war he moved, with his family, to Spain, publications, and of numerous patents, Professor where he spent his adolescence. He Raveau has written two books. returned to Italy and graduated at the University of Genoa in 1959 with a degree in His main results were first obtained on oxides with Chemistry. His publication record started with “Vapour intersecting tunnels structure (cationic exchanges, Pressure of Isotopic Liquids I” published 1959 in ionic conductors), and on oxide bronzes especially Il Nuovo Cimento. Starting his interdisciplinary phosphate bronzes which have then been studied by research between chemistry and physics, in 1960 he solid state physicists for their charge density was appointed Assistant Professor of Physics at the phenomena and incommensurability. He discovered University of Genoa where he carried out research in transition metal phosphates with mixed or unusual the field of physisorption. In 1961, he changed valence, which were then studied for their catalytic research area and joined Jan Beenakker’s group at the properties. Then in the last twenty years Professor Kamerlingh-Onnes Laboratorium of Leiden University Raveau discovered the mixed valent copper oxides, in The Netherlands. There he coauthored the first which were then studied by numerous physicists for papers on what became soon known as the their superconducting properties at high temperature Senftleben-Beenakker Effect: The influence of an (high Tc superconductors up to 135 K). He also external magnetic or electric field on the transport studied the damage of such oxides by heavy ion properties of dilute polyatomic gases. In 1964, bombardment, showing the possibility of enhancing Professor Scoles returned to the University of Genoa the critical current by pinning the vortices in these as Assistant Professor of Physics. In Genoa he stayed materials. More recently he brought an important until 1971 and in those years established a renowned contribution to the discovery of colossal magneto molecular beams laboratory devoted to the resistance (CMR) effect in manganites, by doping investigation of intermolecular forces in gases. In manganese sites with different elements. Such 1971, Professor Scoles moved to the University of materials appear as very promising for magnetic Waterloo, Canada as Professor of Chemistry and

56 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Annex B: Brief Biographies of Panel Members

Physics. There, he helped to establish the Waterloo collaborator with the International Center for Science Centre for Molecular Beams and Laser Chemistry and and High Technology of the UN Industrial he was the initial (Acting) Director of the Guelph- Development Organisation (ICS-UNIDO), an institution Waterloo Centre for Graduate Work in Chemistry, the that favours technology transfer to developing first true inter-university graduate programme in countries and countries in economical transition. Canada. Professor Scoles performed crossed beam differential scattering cross-section studies of atom- Professor Scoles is a Fellow of the Royal Society, a atom, atom-molecule and molecule-molecule foreign member of the Academy of the Sciences of interactions, using his bolometer detector and, with The Netherlands and the recipiant of two honorary Terry Gough and the late Roger Miller, he introduced doctorates. Among his many awards is the Peter the technique of bolometer-detected optothermal Debye Award in Physical Chemistry of the ACS. spectroscopy of molecular beams. In the mid to late 1970s Professor Scoles spent part of his time at the PROFESSOR JAMES A. WELLS University of Trento, Italy where he established a new molecular beam laboratory. The activity of the Trento Professor Jim Wells received a B.A. lab was mainly focused on opto-thermal spectroscopy degree in biochemistry from the and atomic hydrogen scattering experiments. University of California, Berkeley, and a PhD degree in biochemistry from Professor Scoles moved to Princeton University in 1986 Washington State University. His and, soon after was instrumental in the establishment postdoctoral studies were done at of the Princeton Materials Institute. One of the Stanford University Medical School, Department of experiments that he brought to Princeton was the Biochemistry. Professor Wells was the founding study of IR spectroscopy of molecules attached to inert member of the Protein Engineering Department at gas clusters, particularly Ar and Xe clusters. In this Genentech, Inc where he worked for 16 years. His work, he developed the now widely used “pickup research focused on designing new functional technique and set the stage for his later pioneering properties into enzymes and hormones and work on superfluid helium nanodroplets, for which he developing new technologies for engineering proteins. recently shared the Ben Franklin Award in Physics with J.P.Toennies. At Princeton, Professor Scoles collaborated In 1998, Professor Wells founded Sunesis for almost 20 years with Kevin Lehmann on he subjects Pharmaceuticals where he served as President and of Intramolecular Vibrational energy Redistribution and Chief Scientific Officer and developed a novel HENDI (HElium NanoDroplet Isolation) spectroscopy, fragment discovery technology known as disulfide and also began using Atomic Force Microscopy to trapping or Tethering. In 1999, he was elected to the study the interfacial behaviour of biomolecules. US National Academy of Sciences. In 2005, Professor Wells joined UCSF as the Harry W. and Diana Hind Starting in 2003, Professor Scoles took phased Distinguished Professor in Pharmaceutical Sciences. He retirement from Princeton and returned part time to is a joint Professor in the Departments of Cellular & Italy, taking appointments at the Trieste Synchrotron Molecular Pharmacology, and Pharmaceutical Elettra and the International School for Advanced Chemistry. His work is focused on site-directed Studies (SISSA). In SISSA he joined the Condensed chemistry and biology for understanding protein Matter group where he began collaborating on allostery and protease signalling pathways for drug theoretical problems dealing with helium nanodroplets discovery. Professor Wells is also currently the Chair of and with physisorption. At the same time, he started the Department of Pharmacological Chemistry at an experimental group in Elettra, focusing on UCSF. nanoscience, with particular attention to nanoscale biological processes, biophysics, and nanomedicine, efforts linked with the local Consortium of Molecular Biomedicine and with Temple University in Philadelphia, where he is Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Biology.

Professor Scoles is currently Donner Professor of Science Emeritus at Princeton University and a

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 57 Annex C: International Review of Chemistry – Review Week Itinerary

Date Whole Panel

Sunday 19 April Afternoon welcome/briefing session

‘West’ Sub-panel: ‘East’ Sub-panel: Professor A Holmes Professor M Klein Professor A Balazs Professor E Carreira Professor V Colvin Professor S Ceyer Professor P Ford Professor G Fleming Professor G Mehta Professor E Meijer Professor G Meijer Professor J Wells Professor H Möhwald Dr H Hahn Professor M Parrinello Professor B Raveau Professor M Abou-Gharbia Professor G Scoles

Monday 20 April Manchester/Liverpool Edinburgh/ St Andrews/ Glasgow/Strathclyde

Tuesday 21 April Nottingham/Warwick Leeds/Sheffield/Durham/York

Wednesday 22 April Bristol/Bath/Cardiff Cambridge/UEA

Thursday 23 April Oxford/Southampton Imperial/UCL Followed by separate meeting with Senior Industrialists (sub-panel joined by Prof. Abou-Gharbia for this session)

Whole Panel

Thursday 23 April Re-convened at a venue near Heathrow; commenced drafting report (late pm)

Friday 24 April Agreed main findings and recommendations for future actions; presented these to Steering Committee

Saturday 25 April Departed UK

58 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Annex D: Supporting Evidence and Information Provided

A range of supporting evidence and information was • EaStCHEM (Profs. L J Yellowlees and provided to the review panel both before and during J D Woollins) the review. This included: • Hull (Prof. B Winn) Overview: Funding of Science and Innovation in the UK: This describes the key developments that have • Imperial (Prof. R Leatherbarrow) taken place over the last 5 years concerning public funding arrangements for science and innovation in the • Keele (Profs. P D Bailey UK (e.g. creation of DIUS, TSB, BERR), and provides a and C A Ramsden) high-level overview of how the science budget is secured and distributed. It also contains broad • Leeds (Prof. D E Heard) descriptions of various Research Council mechanisms for supporting research and training with a focus on EPSRC • Leicester (Prof. I Postlethwaite) but including sections on BBSRC, MRC and NERC. • Liverpool (Prof. A Cooper) Background Data: This provides EPSRC-related grant and studentship data, information about relevant TSB • Manchester (Prof. P O’Brien) activities, HESA data and high-level funding data from NERC, MRC and BBSRC. It also provided basic RAE • Nottingham (Prof. S M Howdle) data and was prepared as a companion to ‘Funding of Science and Innovation in the UK’ to give more • Oxford (Prof. T P Softley) detailed contextual data relevant to chemistry research in the UK. • QMUL (Prof. U Martin)

Consultation Responses: As part of the preparation • QUB (Prof. R Burch) for the review a public consultation has held to gather evidence for the panel. Responses were specifically • Reading (Dr. M J Almond and invited from the Universities to be visited by the panel, Prof. H M Colquhoun) from others not on the panel’s schedule of visits, and from any other interested person/organisation via a • Sheffield (Prof. M Ward) public call on the EPSRC website. A standard template was used to ensure that submissions addressed the • Southampton (Prof. J Evans) Evidence Framework agreed by the Steering Committee. The panel was provided with both a • Surrey (Prof. R Slade) summary and the full text of all responses received. Responses were received from: • UCL (Prof. S Caddick)

Universities: • WestCHEM (Profs. C C Wilson • Aston (Prof. G J Hooley) and D Graham)

• Bath (Prof. M G Davidson) • York (Prof. P Walton)

• Bristol (Prof. R Bedford) Other Stakeholders: • ABPI (Mrs S Jones) • Cambridge (Prof. W Jones) • AstraZeneca (Dr. D Hollinshead) • Cardiff (Prof. P J Knowles) • Biosciences (Dr. R Dyer) • Durham (Prof. J Evans) Federation

• East Anglia (Profs. P Liss and • Chemistry (Dr. J H Steven) M Bochmann) Innovation

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 59 Annex D: Supporting Evidence and Information Provided

• DSTL (Dr. P Jeffery) Imperial Biological and Biophysical Chemistry (BBC), Catalysis and Advanced • I.Chem.E. (Dr. A Furlong) Materials (CAM), Department of Chemistry Combined, Nano- • IoP (Prof. E A Hinds) structured Materials and Devices, Synthesis, Theoretical and • RSC (Prof. C D Garner and Experimental Physical Chemistry Dr. I Spence) Leeds Colour Science, Inorganic Chemistry, Research Group submissions: Chemistry Research Organic Chemistry, Physical Chemistry Groups at each university with which the Panel met were requested to prepare in advance brief details of Liverpool Catalysis, Materials, Nano-scale their strategic plans and individual research activities. Science, Organic Bio-molecular A standard template was used to ensure that Chemistry submissions addressed the Evidence Framework agreed by the Steering Committee. The following Manchester Biological Chemistry Universities/Consortia submitted details relating to the groups listed below: Nottingham School of Chemistry

Bath Applied Catalysis, Computational Oxford Chemical Biology, Biophysical and Chemistry, Inorganic Chemistry, Biological Chemistry, Energy & Medicinal Chemistry, Organic Catalysis, Materials, Measurement, Chemistry, Physical Chemistry Synthesis, Theoretical Chemistry

Bristol Atmospheric Chemistry and Global Sheffield Analytical Science, Chemical biology, Change, Biological Chemistry, Cell Mineral Research Centre (C- Catalysis, Computational Chemistry, MRC), Ceramics and Composites Materials Chemistry, Spectroscopy and Laboratory, Materials, Structural Dynamics, Supramolecular, Structural biology, Synthesis, Theory & and Mechanistic Chemistry, Synthesis Spectroscopy

Cambridge Atmospheric Chemistry, Chemical Southampton Chemical Biology, Electro-Chemistry Biology, Materials, surfaces and and Surface Science, Structure and physical chemistry, Synthetic Materials, Synthesis Chemistry, Theoretical/Computational Chemistry and Informatics UCL Computational Chemistry, Inorganic and Materials Chemistry, Organic Durham Creative Chemistry, Materials & Chemistry and Chemical Biology Structure, Soft Matter and Interfaces, (OCCB), Physical Chemistry & Theory & Dynamics Chemical Physics

East Anglia Laboratory for Marine and Warwick Dept. of Chemistry Atmospheric Chemistry (LGMAC) WestCHEM Analytical & Environmental Chemistry, EaStCHEM Chemistry/Biology Interface: Biological (Glasgow, Chemical Biology and Biological Edinburgh, Chemistry, Chemistry/Biology Stratclyde) Chemistry, Inorganic Synthesis, St Andrews) Interface: Bioorganic and Biophysical Materials Discovery and Functionality, Chemistry, Chemical Physics and Chemical Nano-Sciences, Organic Structure, Materials Chemistry: Energy, Synthesis, Physical Organic Chemistry, Functional Materials, Surface Science, Chemical Structure & Dynamics Synthetic Inorganic Chemistry, Synthetic Organic Chemistry

60 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Annex D: Supporting Evidence and Information Provided

York Biological Chemistry, Inorganic • Funcxional Therapeutics chemistry and green chemistry/ • Gilden Photonics catalysis, Organic chemistry and • GSK organic materials chemistry (liquid • Ilika Technologies crystals), Physical Chemistry and • Ingenza Analytical Chemistry • ISIS Innovation, Oxford • Johnson Matthey Grand Challenges Submissions: Stemming from • KCMC recommendations made by the 2002 International • Lucite Review of Chemistry (the ‘Whitesides’ Review), these • Nanotecture plc. gave evidence of progress made since then by the • NNL research community in articulating opportunities, for • Novartis academic chemistry in the UK, with the aim of • Oxford Advanced Surfaces Group plc developing a community-driven chemical sciences and • Oxford Nanopore Technologies engineering research strategy that has the potential to • Pfizer make the UK truly world leading. • Pilkingtons • Procter & Gamble In addition to the above the panel were also provided • Research Biotica with: • SAFC Hitech • SASOL • the RAE2008 sub-panel overview reports of the • Siemens Chemistry and Chemical Engineering sub-panels. • Silberline • Solvay Interox • the full RAE2008 submissions covering RA5a • Structural Genomics Consortium (Research Environment and Esteem), RA3a • Syngenta (Research Students), RA3b (Research Studentships) • Unilever and RA4 (Research Income) made to those sub- • Varian panels. The Review panel was also briefed on Sunday 19th April by Professor Jeremy Sanders (chair of the RAE 2008 Chemistry sub-panel).

• the final report of the 2002 International Review of Chemistry (the ‘Whitesides’ Review).

Further, the following companies/industry bodies made representatives available to the panel during their visits to Universities:

• Astex • AstraZeneca • Atlas Genetics • AWE • Akzo-Nobel • BP • Bristol-Meyers Squibb • Byotrol • Chemical Sciences Scotland • CI-KTN • Cresset-BMD Ltd • Diamond Light Source Ltd • DSM (Dutch State Mines) • Excelsyn

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 61 Annex E: Grand Challenges

The US Department of Energy’s Office of Science, • How do remarkable properties of matter emerge Office of Basic Energy Sciences has for the past several from complex correlations of the atomic or years focused on the issue of Basic Research Needs electronic constituents and how can we control (BRN) in the energy field and to this end sponsored a these properties? series of thematic workshops, with broad science community participation (including many prominent • How can we master energy and information on chemists), to identify areas of opportunity. The the nanoscale to create new technologies with culmination of this activity was the announcement on capabilities rivalling those of living things? April 27, 2009 of the initiation of Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) to accelerate the rate of • How do we characterise and control matter away scientific breakthroughs needed to create advanced - especially very far away - from equilibrium? energy technologies for the 21st century13. The most recent DOE report: New Science for a Secure The EFRCs will pursue the fundamental understanding and Sustainable Energy Future summarises the necessary to meet the global need for abundant, clean scientific research directions that emerged from all the and economical energy. The distribution of the EFRC previous Basic Research Needs workshop reports into awards by broad topic areas (with the related BRN a comprehensive set of science themes, identifying the reports listed in parentheses) can be described as new implementation strategies and tools required to follows: accomplish the science15.

• Renewable and Carbon-Neutral Energy (Solar Energy Utilization, Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems, Biofuels, Geological Sequestration of CO2); 20 EFRCs.

• Energy Efficiency (Clean and Efficient Combustion, Solid State Lighting, Superconductivity); 6 EFRCs.

• Energy Storage (Hydrogen Research, Electrical Energy Storage); 6 EFRCs.

• Crosscutting Science (Catalysis, Materials under Extreme Environments, other); 14 EFRCs.

An earlier report from DOE (Fleming and Ratner, 2007): Directing Matter and Energy: Five Challenges for Science and the Imagination14 focussed on grand challenges for science, the roadblocks to progress, and the opportunities for truly transformational new understanding of how nature works. This report poses five challenges key to making the transition from observation to control of matter at the quantum, atomic and molecular levels:

• How do we control materials processes at the level of electrons?

• How do we design and perfect atom- and energy- efficient syntheses of revolutionary new forms of matter with tailored properties? 13 http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/EFRC.html 14 http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/abstracts.html#GC 15 http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/GC_rpt.pdf

62 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Annex F: Summary of all Recommendations

Note: Recommendations are listed here in the order in which they occur in the main body of the report. Where the same or an equivalent recommendation is made in the Executive Summary or in section 6 (Overall Recommendations) it is cross-referenced accordingly.

Cross reference to

Section 6 - Executive Recommendation Overall Summary recommendations

A1: Greater participation and active involvement by the university community in partnership with the Research Councils is necessary to set priorities to establish and sustain world-leadership positions in chemistry.

A2: More groups need to have access to sustainable, long-term funding, which enables adventurous, visionary research in the core and multi-disciplinary programmes. ü

A3: Strategic hires (senior and ECR) in critical areas would help to address these shortcomings. International leaders should be approached because it is likely they could more readily nucleate effective research programmes.

A.4: The presence of a DTC in synthesis is a positive development, as are those other recently announced DTCs which will stimulate capacity generation and help sustain new activities in chemical biology, nanoscience and medicinal chemistry at competitive level. However, it is necessary to support several vigorous research groups in these areas for to reap the rewards of this investment. Moreover, DTC funding should extend beyond a one-off opportunity; a plea resonating in other sub- disciplines of chemistry.

A.5: More should be done to increase the current international standing of experimental physical, theoretical and computational chemistry.

A.6: UK Inorganic Chemistry is well positioned to make essential contributions to Sustainable Energy, including developing efficient and selective catalysis for biomass feedstock and solar energy conversion and storage. The new DTC in sustainable chemical technologies is a welcome development, and further attention to these areas by the funding agencies might encourage qualified individuals or teams to undertake the risk of potentially transformative research in this arena.

A.7a: Mechanisms to stimulate collaborations at the physics/chemistry materials interface should be improved and an effort should be made to encourage the training in this multidisciplinary area, which is the clue to discovery of new materials with as yet unrealised properties.

A.7b: An increased effort should be made to stimulate collaborations between industry and the materials chemistry community via programmes, fellowships, and exchanges.

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 63 Annex F: Summary of all Recommendations

Cross reference to

Section 6 - Executive Recommendation Overall Summary recommendations

A.8: Under-exploitation of facilities should be view as unacceptable and be resolved as a priority since the physics and chemistry (and biology) 6.3 communities are affected in the UK and will lose productivity and ü efficiency.

A.9: Because the scientific and engineering issues in climate modelling and climate change are so immense the UK atmospheric chemistry community, and society, would best be served by further uniting forces to maximise the UK's impact on the international stage of climate change.

A.10: Serious consideration needs to be given to sustaining and improving the quality of polymer and colloid science through opportunities in managed and responsive mode programmes. Noteworthy opportunities exist in addressing new synthetic methodology for both specialist and commodity polymers, and issues that relate to environmentally friendly footprint for commodity chemicals.

A.11: Attention should be given to improving the interface between physical, theoretical, computational and supramolecular chemistry.

A.12: Serious consideration needs to be given to establishing programmes in the area of biological materials chemistry with emphasis on nano-biomaterials, with its obvious links to supramolecular chemistry, as well as chemical and bio-engineering.

A.13: Attention to be given to improving the interface between chemistry and biology via schemes that further stimulate real collaborations.

A.14: Research Councils, stakeholders and academia should look for ways to create viable partnerships to further drug discovery in the UK to retain its globally competitive position. ü

B.1: Strategic planning is needed and mechanisms need to be put in place to maintain, upgrade and, eventually, renew the equipment in the years to come. In addition, qualified technical support personnel are 6.2 needed to run the facilities, to provide long-term continuity and to train ü the PhD students and post-doctoral scientists, who constitute the primary user base.

B.2: Provision to support international exchange, as appropriate, should be made available to PhD students funded through other means than DTCs, for example DTAs.

C.1: Increase the number of long-term single PI initiated grants to stimulate more adventurous research. If these grants are processed via responsive mode there should be a cap to ensure a sufficient number of 6.4a grants can be awarded. Importantly, such grants should not be in ü competition with very large grants.

64 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Annex F: Summary of all Recommendations

Cross reference to

Section 6 - Executive Recommendation Overall Summary recommendations

C.2: The Panel suggests a need for stakeholders to examine with the chemistry community how best to improve the effectiveness of responsive mode grants in enabling more adventurous research.

D.1: The research community and the Research Councils should work together to define priorities (balance core versus societal needs) and also jointly develop new support structures to enable the UK to contribute effectively to the transformational research needed in the decades ahead.

D.2: It is suggested that wherever critical interdisciplinary depth exists, centres or research groupings be created, preferably through public- private partnership and adequate long term funding, to find solutions to some of the key societal concerns.

D.3: The research community and Research Councils should work in partnership to define the emerging technological/societal challenges and jointly craft appropriate ways to deliver solutions. ü

D.4: The Research Councils, the Royal Society and charities should enhance their efforts to identify and support emerging leaders in chemistry.

E.1: More DTCs and other mechanisms are needed to help define local, regional, and even national efforts with sufficient “mass” to have a global impact.

F.1: Appropriate mechanisms should be developed through partnerships between stakeholders to encourage UK industry to continue to invest resources (e.g. people, finances) into academic chemical research.

F.2: Academia together with industry could be further encouraged to build a more visible, collaborative framework for exchanging knowledge in both directions. In particular, appropriate government agencies should consider helping to develop programmes that help companies make longer term commitments to industry-academic partnerships.

F.3a: The RSC and other stakeholders, in partnership with the chemistry community, should commission an in-depth study of the importance of the UK chemistry research base to UK industry and the national economy.

F.3b: Research Councils and stakeholders should commence a dialogue on ways to stimulate creativity and innovation in approaches to Knowledge Transfer; the ‘Open Innovation’ approach adopted in the Netherlands is a model deserving further consideration.

G.1: A significant number of spinout companies are successfully exploiting UK chemistry research. These examples of chemistry innovation are worthy of more detailed investigation by the Research Councils and stakeholders as templates for success.

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 65 Annex F: Summary of all Recommendations

Cross reference to

Section 6 - Executive Recommendation Overall Summary recommendations

G.2: Further efforts should be made to improve the interface between academia and industry across the various sub-disciplines of chemistry. This includes technology transfer and IP management.

H.1: The majority view on the Panel was that the recruiting mechanism into tenured faculty (lecturer) positions, and the treatment of ECRs in 6.1.b general in the UK, needs to be improved in favour of a well-defined ü career path.

H.2: There is a lot to be said in favour of introducing a tenure track system decreasing sharply the number of post-doctoral fellows in 6.1.a perceived tenure-track-like situations and increasing the number of real tenure track appointments in the universities.

H.3: PhD requirements in the UK should give more emphasis on achievement and be flexible enough to allow up to 5 years, if necessary, for completion without penalty to the individual involved. A flexible 6.5 approach would not prohibit 3 or 4 year PhDs but overall would ü probably allow for more adventurous research.

I.1: There is an urgent need to address the current failure of existing mechanisms of research support to direct resources into university chemistry departments for equipment and start-up funds; an issue that 6.4b is hampering the development of the discipline in emerging areas that demand technologically sophisticated and expensive instrumentation for start-up.

I.2: EPSRC and stakeholders of the International Review should open a dialogue with leaders of the UK Chemistry community to develop strategies for guaranteeing the health of academic chemistry in the decade ahead. Key elements to be considered include not only the appropriate ratio of responsive mode versus programme and platform grant support, what to do about the current cap on First Grants, whether or not to cap the size of responsive mode grants, and convene an external panel to examine the nature of the scientific review process (including whether or not to limit the number of proposals).

I.3: Adopt the key societal challenges (Energy, Sustainability, Climate, Environment, Health) as the framework basis for strategic planning and direction involving science education. Specifically it could be an excellent strategy to fold into and somehow leverage a national dialogue on Societal Grand Challenges of opportunity as a way to engage the ü science community and the public. In so doing, the role of chemistry as a central discipline will emerge.

66 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Annex F: Summary of all Recommendations

Cross reference to

Section 6 - Executive Recommendation Overall Summary recommendations

I.4: The Research Councils and Chemistry community should carry out a detailed study of the diversity of university educators and researchers in UK to establish if there is a reason for concern. If there is a systematic problem direct steps should be taken to rectify this at all levels with respect to hiring, promotion and rewards.

I.5: Create viable mechanisms to support foreign graduate students.

I.6: UK plc needs to boost its R&D investments in the UK to stay globally competitive.

I.7a: The Research Councils open thoughtful and constructive dialogue with the academic Chemistry community on how to limit the burden on all concerned. I.7b: The Research Councils should carry out a thorough and independent review (with international representation) of its funding mechanisms and procedures.

“Truth is to be found in simplicity & not in the multiplicity & confusion of things” Isaac Newton

International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base 67 Annex G: Steering Committee Membership and Role

The Steering Committee membership was as follows: OBJECTIVES of the Steering Committee

Professor Jim Feast (Chair), • Role of the Steering Committee: Royal Society of Chemistry – Assist in the implementation of the international review process. Professor Rodney Townsend, Royal Society of Chemistry – Discuss with the review panel their findings and provide advice where appropriate. Professor Nigel Perry, Institution of Chemical Engineers – Participate in the dissemination of international review findings to the wider stakeholder Dr Anthony Wood, community. Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry & Pfizer* • Select the Chemistry Departments to be visited by the Panel: Dr Brian Cox, Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry Bath, Bristol, Cambridge, Cardiff, Durham, & Novartis* Edinburgh, Glasgow, Imperial College, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester , Nottingham, Oxford, Dr Colin Harrison, Sheffield, Southampton, St. Andrews, Strathclyde, Chemistry Innovation Knowledge Transfer Network UCL, UEA, Warwick, York

Dr Frances Rawle, • Select the Chair & panel following community Medical Research Council nominations: Selection Criteria: Area of expertise, international Dr Amanda Collis, balance, industrial representation, gender/age Biotechnology and Biological Sciences balance Research Council • Agree on the Evidence Framework: Ms Hazel Jeffery, Natural Environment Research Council Setting out the high level questions to be addressed by the review panel Professor Ivan Powis, Institute of Physics • Background data to be provided to the Review Panel: Professor Colin Kleanthous, Contextual data available from EPRSC, The Biochemical Society bibliometrics, stakeholder consultation, academic/industrial interface: RAE exercise 2008 Professor David Delpy, EPSRC • Outline for the Panel’s visit to the universities

* one representative from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry attended Steering Committee meetings • EPSRC provided Secretariat responsible for organisation and planning

68 International Perceptions of the UK Chemistry Research Base Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Polaris House North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1ET

Designed and printed by JRS Document Solutions